Cashatt v. Ford Motor Company

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 7, 2022
• Docket: 3:19-cv-05886
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 RANDALL CASHATT, et al., CASE NO. 19-CV-05886-LK 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 12 v. FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 14 Defendant. 15

16 Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Jeffrey Heath, Plaintiffs’ 17 Cross Motion to Amend Complaint, and the parties’ responses and replies to these motions. See 18 Dkt. Nos. 57, 63, 64, 65, 66. Defendant does not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion. Dkt. No. 66. The 19 Court GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint within 30 days. Defendant’s 20 motion is accordingly DENIED as moot. See Dkt. No. 65 at 4. 21 The Court cautions Plaintiffs that it expects strict adherence to the Local Rules, the 22 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and all deadlines. The deadline for Plaintiffs’ third amended 23 complaint was May 15, 2021. See docket entry dated 4/28/2021 (the “Scheduling Order”); Dkt. 24 1 No. 65 at 2. It was not until June 21, 2021, that Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint, 2 relying heavily on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Dkt. No. 63 at 2–3. 3 The applicable standard here, however, is not limited to Rule 15(a), but implicates Rule 4 16(b), because Plaintiffs’ motion to amend came after the deadline provided by the Scheduling

5 Order. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000); Johnson v. 6 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–608 (9th Cir. 1992); see also S&W Enters., 7 L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535–36 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2003) 8 (agreeing with the First, Second, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits that Rule 16(b) trumps 9 Rule 15(a) when a motion to amend comes after the deadline set forth in a scheduling order). 10 Under Rule 16(b), a party must show good cause for not having amended its complaint before 11 the time specified in the scheduling order expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Coleman, 232 F.3d at 12 1294. “Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of the party 13 seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good 14 cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson,

15 975 F.2d at 609. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the 16 modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon 17 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification,” and “carelessness is not compatible with a 18 finding of diligence”; “[i]f that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. 19 Here, Plaintiffs have been anything but diligent. Despite ample opportunity to amend and 20 repeated reminders from opposing counsel, Plaintiffs missed the Court’s deadline. See Dkt. No. 21 65 at 1–2. Such carelessness would typically doom Plaintiffs’ request. See, e.g., Zivkovic v. So. 22 Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). Next time, the Court will not be so 23 forgiving. Plaintiffs shall file a third amended complaint no later than March 7, 2022.

24 1 Dated this 7th day of February, 2022. 2 A 3 Lauren King United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23