Kneizys v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 3, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01402
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 STEVEN KNEIZYS, 8 NO. C20-1402RSL Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 10 JOIN A PARTY AND MODIFY FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE SCHEDULING ORDER 11 CORPORATION, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion to Join a Party and Modify 16 Scheduling Order.” Dkt. # 100. Plaintiff recently discovered that the FDIC, as the receiver for 17 Washington Mutual Bank (“WAMU”), may have a policy of insurance covering some or all of 18 the claims asserted in the above-captioned litigation. He seeks to amend the complaint to add the 19 insurer as a defendant, arguing that the FDIC has a statutory duty to minimize expenditures from 20 21 the fund and should therefore have made a claim on the policy. FDIC opposes the motion. 22 Plaintiff did not file a reply. 23 Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED for the 24 following reasons: 25 1. Plaintiff has not argued or shown that Chicago Title Insurance Company is an 26 27 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO JOIN A PARTY 1 indispensable party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. 2 2. Plaintiff has not argued or shown that he has a colorable claim or right to relief against 3 Chicago Title Insurance Company that he is entitled to assert in this litigation for purposes of the 4 permissive joinder analysis under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. 5 3. Plaintiff has not provided any legal authority that supports his effort to compel the 6 7 FDIC to make a claim under the Chicago Title Insurance Company policy (or to pursue legal 8 action against the insurer). 9 4. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), case management deadlines established by the Court 10 “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”1 The deadline for joining 11 parties was August 26, 2021. Dkt. # 82. The deadline for completing discovery was December 6, 12 2021. Dkt. # 94. Although plaintiff only recently became aware of the policy’s existence and 13 14 complains that the FDIC failed to disclose the policy earlier, there is no indication that plaintiff 15 requested that the FDIC produce its insurance policies during discovery. Plaintiff has not shown 16 diligence or good cause for the belated addition of a new party, especially where the proposed 17 18 19 1 Rule 16 was amended in 1983 to require scheduling orders that govern pre-trial as well as trial procedures. The purpose of the change was to improve the efficiency of federal litigation: leaving the 20 parties to their own devices until shortly before trial was apparently costly and resulted in undue delay. Under the 1983 amendment, once a case management schedule issues, changes will be made only if the 21 movant shows “good cause.” 22 Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking 23 the amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met with the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment) . . . . 25 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). See also Zivkovic v. S. Cal. 26 Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2002) (where plaintiff failed to “demonstrate diligence in complying with the dates set by the district court,” good cause was not shown). 27 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO JOIN A PARTY 1 amendment would require the reopening of discovery and the continuance of all pending case 2 management deadlines. 3 4 For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to join a new defendant and to modify 5 the case management order (Dkt. # 100) is DENIED. 6 7 8 Dated this 3rd day of January, 2022. 9 10 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO JOIN A PARTY