Robert Alan Daniel, et al. v. United States of America

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 ROBERT ALAN DANIEL, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-05303-TMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE 9 TO AMEND v. 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 11 Defendant. 12 13

14 I. ORDER 15 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint following remand 16 from the Ninth Circuit. Dkt. 83. The deadline for amending pleadings passed years ago. Dkt. 13. 17 A bifurcated bench trial on liability, limited to the claims that remain after appeal, is set for June 18 29, 2026. Dkt. 85. 19 When a party seeks leave to amend a pleading after the deadline set by a case scheduling 20 order, the ability to amend is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)’s “good cause” 21 standard. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608–09 (9th Cir. 1992). “[T]he 22 focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id. at 609. 23 Here, Plaintiffs assert that they seek amendment to (1) include the full name of Plaintiff L.J.D., 24 who has now reached the age of majority; and (2) align the pleadings with the claims that remain 1 for trial following remand by the Ninth Circuit. See Dkt. 83 at 2-3. But both of those goals can 2 || be accomplished through the pretrial order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(A), (2)(J). That 3 document will reflect the parties, claims, and defenses that are proceeding to trial consistent with 4 the mandate of the Ninth Circuit, and it will thereafter “control the course of the action.” Fed. R. 5 Civ. P. 16(d). There is thus no good cause to amend the complaint, and the motion (Dkt. 83) is 6 || DENIED. 7 8 Dated this 9th day of March, 2026.

10 Tiffany a Cartwright United States District Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24