Olivia Valadez v. Sutter Health Memorial Hospital, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OLIVIA VALADEZ, No. 1:22-cv-00263-DJC-EPG 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SUTTER HEALTH MEMORIAL 15 HOSPITAL, et al., 16 Defendants. 17

18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order 19 to designate a belated economic expert to opine with certainty on the economic loss 20 to Plaintiff. The Motion is brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). 21 Having considered the Parties’ briefings and arguments, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 22 Motion to Amend. 23 BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff Olivia Valadez filed suit in March 2022, bringing causes of action under 25 the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active 26 Labor Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Person’s Act, and a 27 28 1 cause of action for negligence.1 (See generally Compl. (ECF No 2).) On September 2 16, 2022, the Court issued a scheduling order, setting expert witness disclosures on 3 July 10, 2023, and setting the cutoff for expert discovery on September 18, 2023. 4 (ECF No. 14). On August 3, 2023, the Court extended the deadline for expert witness 5 disclosure to November 27, 2023, and set a deadline to complete expert discovery to 6 February 1, 2024. (ECF No. 34). In March 2024, the Parties agreed to an extension of 7 time to complete expert depositions, and the Court extended the deadline for expert 8 discovery to May 17, 2024. The Court noted in its March Order that no further 9 extension to the deadline would be granted. (ECF No. 45). In its Order on December 10 5, 2025, the Court held that Plaintiff may proceed with a wrongful death claim. (Dec. 11 Order (ECF No. 124).) 12 Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant Motion, seeking amendment to 13 designate a belated economic expert to provide a more certain value for economic 14 damages. Defendants oppose the Motion, arguing that it is prejudicial and not 15 diligent. The matter was ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to Local 16 Rule 230(g). (ECF No. 132). 17 LEGAL STANDARD 18 A scheduling order is not “a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be 19 cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 20 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Rather, 21 a scheduling order may be changed only with the court’s consent and for “good 22 cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard is viewed more 23 stringently that Rule 15. AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W. Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 24 952 (9th Cir. 2006). The moving party cannot “appeal to the liberal amendment 25 procedures afforded by Rule 15; his tardy motion [must] satisfy the more stringent 26 ‘good cause’ showing required under Rule 16.” Id.

27 1 At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action are for EMTALA and negligence 28 per se. 1 Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party 2 seeking the amendment.” Id. at 609. “Good cause may be found to exist where the 3 moving party shows that it diligently assisted the court with creating a workable 4 scheduling order, that it is unable to comply with the scheduling order’s deadlines 5 due to matters that could not have reasonably been foreseen at the time of the 6 issuance of the scheduling order, and that it was diligent in seeking an amendment 7 once it became apparent that the party could not comply with the scheduling order.” 8 Kuschner v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 684,687 (E.D. Cal. 2009). “If that party 9 was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 10 DISCUSSION 11 Plaintiff argues that she was diligent in filing because the Court “allow[ed] the 12 wrongful death claim to move forward” in the December 5, 2025, Order and because 13 she first came to understand that Defendant seeks to dispute Plaintiff’s claim and 14 amount of special damages in the October 2025 Joint Pretrial Status Report. 15 Defendant argues that good cause does not exist because Plaintiff should have always 16 expected that Defendant would have challenged her claim for damages, and that 17 Plaintiff has represented that the wrongful death was, and always has been, part of the 18 present action. The diligence inquiry under Rule 16(b) focuses on the time between 19 discovery of a new fact and the moving party seeking leave to amend. See, e.g., 20 Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609–10 (denying leave to amend because the moving party 21 knew the information beforehand but failed to bring a claim until four months after the 22 deadline). 23 The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s Motion is not diligent. Here, Plaintiff has been 24 aware of the potential for a wrongful death claim since the inception of the case. In 25 the Joint Brief filed in November 2025, Plaintiff argues that “[t]he wrongful death 26 elements are satisfied by the operative pleading. . . .” (Joint Brief (ECF No. 120) at 3.) 27 Further, in the December 2025 Order, Judge Mueller found that the allegations in the 28 Complaint were sufficient such that Plaintiff was able to pursue a wrongful death 1 | claim. (See Dec. Order at 2-3.) As for the issue of Defendant disputing Plaintiff's 2 | damages, Plaintiff has not adequately explained how such issue could not have 3 | reasonably been foreseen, or why she waited over two months after the October 2025 4 | Joint Pretrial Status Report to seek amendment. Because Plaintiff fails to explain how 5 | this information was not previously known, the Court finds that the request for 6 | amendment is not diligent. See, e.g., Infmetry LLC v. Message in a Bottle, Inc., No. 7 | 1:22-cv-01075-DJC-JDP, 2024 WL 3470345, at *2-3 (E.D. Cal. July 19, 2024) (denying 8 | amotion to amend where the moving party failed to establish diligence). 9 CONCLUSION 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (ECF No. 125) is DENIED. 11 12 IT 1S SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _ April 24, 2026 “Dane J CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 | DJCé6 - VALADEZ22cv00263.mta_v1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28