CA Coastkeeper Alliance v. Cosumnes Corp. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER No. 2:20-cv-1703 DB ALLIANCE, 12 13 Plaintiff, ORDER 14 v. 15 COSUMNES CORPORATION dba MURIETA EQUESTRIAN CENTER, 16 17 Defendant. 18 19 Each of the parties in the above-captioned case has consented to proceed before a United 20 States Magistrate Judge. See U.S.C. § 636(c). Accordingly, this matter has been reassigned to 21 the undersigned for all purposes. On February 10, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to 22 amend along with a proposed second amended complaint. (ECF No. 42.) Defendant filed an 23 opposition on February 25, 2022. (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff filed a reply on March 4, 2022. (ECF 24 No. 47.) Plaintiff’s motion was taken under submission that same day. (ECF No. 46.) 25 A pretrial schedule issued in this action on April 5, 2021. (ECF No. 22.) “Once the 26 district court had filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 27 which established a timetable for amending pleadings that rule’s standards control[].” Johnson v. 28 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ 1 standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. 2 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). In this regard, under Rule 16(b), 3 plaintiffs “must show good cause for not having amended their complaints before the time 4 specified in the scheduling order expired.” Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 5 (9th Cir. 2000). 6 “Courts within this Circuit ‘have articulated and undertaken [a] three-step inquiry in 7 resolving the question of ‘diligence’ in the context of determining good cause under Rule 16[.]’” 8 Morgal v. Maricopa County Bd. of Sup’rs, 284 F.R.D. 452, 460 (D. Ariz. 2012) (quoting Grant v. 9 United States, 2011 WL 5554878, at *4 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)). 10 Under that inquiry: To demonstrate diligence under Rule 16’s ‘good cause’ standard, the movant may be required to show the following: 11 (1) that he was diligent in assisting the court in creating a workable Rule 16 order; (2) that his noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline 12 occurred or will occur, notwithstanding his diligent efforts to comply, because of the development of matters which could not have 13 been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16 scheduling conference; and (3) that he was diligent in seeking 14 amendment of the Rule 16 order, once it became apparent that he could not comply with the order. 15 16 Id. 17 Here, the court finds that plaintiff has satisfied the good cause standard. See generally 18 Analytical Measurements, Inc. v. Keuffel & Esser Co., 843 F. Supp. 920, 926 (D. N.J. 1993) 19 (“Whether to permit the amendment of a final pretrial order is entirely within the discretionary 20 power of the trial court.”). In this regard, plaintiff’s briefing establishes that after plaintiff named 21 Kaitlyn Kalua as an injured member for purposes of standing, Kalua began employment with a 22 California State agency clouding her ability to participate in this litigation. (Pl.’s Mot. (ECF No. 23 42) at 9.) That in September of 2021 the Ninth Circuit issued an important decision relevant to 24 this litigation. See Inland Empire Waterkeeper v. Corona Clay Co., 17 F.4th 825, 829 (9th Cir. 25 2021) (“holding “that if the required jurisdictional discharge into United States waters has 26 occurred, a CWA citizen suit can be premised on ongoing or reasonably expected monitoring or 27 reporting violations”). These events occurred relatively recently and thus plaintiff’s actions can 28 //// 1 | be characterized as diligent. Moreover, defendant will not be prejudiced by granting plaintiff’s 2 || motion. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Plaintiff’s February 10, 2022 motion to amend (ECF No. 42) is granted; and 5 2. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within seven days of the date of this 6 || order. 7 || Dated: March 8, 2022 8 9 10 B ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 || DLB:6 DB/orders/orders.consent/coastkeeper1703.lta.ord 25 26 27 28