Icenhour v. Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] Elaine R. Icenhour, No. 2:22-cv-00204-KJM-AC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc., and Does 1 15 through 25, 16 Defendants. 17 The parties stipulated that plaintiff Elaine R. Icenhour should be granted leave to file a 18 | First Amended Complaint. Stip., ECF No. 13. They also submitted a proposed order to that 19 | effect. Prop. Order, ECF No. 13. But, under Rule 16 and the court’s scheduling order, the parties 20 | may only seek leave to amend with good cause. See Standing Scheduling Order at 1-2, ECF 21 | No. 8. “Agreement of the parties by stipulation alone does not constitute good cause.” □□□ at 8. 22 | Because the parties did not offer an explanation for the amendment, they have not shown good 23 | cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 24 | 1992). 25 Leave to file an amended complaint is denied without prejudice. 26 This order resolves ECF No. 13. 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 28 DATED: September 22, 2022. CHIEF oe STATES DISTRICT JUDGE