VibrantCare Rehabilitation, Inc. v. Deol

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 VIBRANTCARE REHABILITATION, No. 2:20-cv-00791-MCE-AC INC., 11 Plaintiff, v. 13 KIRAN DEOL, et al. 14 Defendants. 15

16 By way of the present action, Plaintiff VibrantCare Rehabilitation, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), 17 seeks damages from its former employee, Kiran Deol (“Deol”), and her subsequent 18 employers, Golden Bear Physical Therapy Sports Injury Center, Inc., and Golden Bear 19 PT Partners, LLC, (together, “Golden Bear”) (collectively with Deol, “Defendants”) 20 stemming from Defendant’s conduct at or around the end of her employment with 21 Plaintiff. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order with 22 Leave to Amend Complaint. ECF No. 78. For the following reasons, that Motion is 23 DENIED.1 24 Generally, a motion to amend is subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a),2 25

26 1 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g). 27

2 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 28 1 which provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so 2 requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, once a pretrial scheduling order is filed 3 pursuant to Rule 16, “that rule’s standards control[].” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 4 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th Cir. 1992). 5 Under Rule 16(b), a party seeking leave to amend must demonstrate “good 6 cause,” which “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 7 Id. at 609. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing 8 modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion [to amend], the focus of 9 the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id. “If that party 10 was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. Only upon a finding of good cause will the 11 court then evaluate the request to amend the complaint in light of Rule 15(a)’s liberal 12 standard. 13 Good cause has not been shown. The action against Deol has been pending for 14 over four years. She was not deposed until the eve of the close of fact discovery in early 15 2024, after the magistrate judge had denied Plaintiff’s request to conduct a forensic 16 examination of Deol’s devices and this Court denied a motion to reconsider that 17 decision. Regardless of whether Plaintiff believes it has now identified discrepancies in 18 Deol’s deposition testimony that justify revisiting its forensic examination request, which 19 to be clear, the Court has not found, Plaintiff simply waited too long. Deol was the only 20 Defendant in this action for years and Plaintiff had ample opportunity to depose her and 21 address any purported need for a forensic examination over the years of litigation 22 leading up to the recent discovery deadline. 23 Nor has Plaintiff shown that any involvement of Shore Capital Partners, LLC, 24 (“Shore”) was newly discovered in 2024. To the contrary, Defendants have offered 25 evidence that Shore’s potential role was identified in 2022 during the testimony of Bobby 26 Ismail, Golden Bear’s CEO and person most knowledgeable. Decl. of Joseph J. Kim, 27 ECF No. 81-2, Ex. A. The relationship, or potential relationship, between the Golden 28 Bear and Shore is not a newly discovered fact sufficient to warrant modifying the 1 | scheduling order, reopening discovery, and amending the complaint. 2 Because Plaintiff has failed to show the requisite diligence to establish good 3 | cause under Rule 16, the Court need not reach the Rule 15 leave to amend standard. 4 | Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Scheduling Order with Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 5 | 78) and Request for Hearing is DENIED. 7 | Dated: June 6, 2024 8 □ late JES. Whip AX XC - ° SENIOR UNITED STATES URTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28