Baugher Ranch Organics v. Great Host International ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BAUGHER RANCH ORGANICS, a No. 2:21-cv-00646-MCE-DB California corporation, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 GREAT HOST INTERNATIONAL, 15 INC., dba ANDALUCIA NUTS, a Texas corporation, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Baugher Ranch Organics’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion 20 for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint which seeks to add a new cause of action 21 for fraud. ECF No. 23; see also Pl.’s Mem. ISO Mot. Leave to File First Am. Compl., 22 ECF No. 23-1 (“Pl.’s Mem.”). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.1 23 Generally, a motion to amend is subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a),2 24 which provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so 25 requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, once a pretrial scheduling order is filed 26 1 Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered this 27 matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Local Rule 230(g). 28 2 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 pursuant to Rule 16, “that rule’s standards control[].”3 Johnson v. Mammoth 2 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607–08 (9th Cir. 1992). 3 Under Rule 16(b), a party seeking leave to amend must demonstrate “good 4 cause,” which “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 5 Id. at 609. “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing 6 modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion [to amend], the focus of 7 the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.” Id. “If that party 8 was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id. Only upon a finding of good cause will the 9 court then evaluate the request to amend the complaint in light of Rule 15(a)’s liberal 10 standard.4 11 Here, Plaintiff argues that amendment is warranted because it discovered 12 additional facts through the deposition of Sal Zeini, Defendant Great Host International, 13 Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Person Most Knowledgeable and Vice President of Operations. See 14 Pl.’s Mem., at 4. However, that deposition was taken on August 9, 2022, almost a year 15 before this Motion was filed on July 18, 2023. See Ex. B, Ellis Decl., ECF No. 23-2, at 16 115. Plaintiff has not provided any explanation as to why it waited this long to file the 17 pending Motion. It asserts that the Court did “not set a deadline by which the parties 18 were to seek leave to amend to add new claims and/or parties.” Pl.’s Mem., at 16. But 19 the Pretrial Scheduling Order provides that “[w]ithin thirty (30) days of service of the 20 complaint on the last party, or from the date of removal, whichever is later, the parties 21 shall amend the complaint or join any parties pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil 22 Procedure. No other joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without 23 leave of court, good cause having been shown.” ECF No. 2, at 2 (emphasis added). 24 Waiting 11 months to seek leave to amend does not establish good cause. 25 /// 26 3 The Court issued its Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order on April 12, 2021. See ECF No. 2. 27 4 Plaintiff’s Motion relies on Rule 15 in seeking leave to amend. See Pl.’s Mem., at 15–16. However, because a Pretrial Scheduling Order was already issued, Plaintiff’s Motion must be analyzed 28 under Rule 16 and the Court construes the Motion as having been made under that Rule. nnn nnn ene EE I EE I OSE IIE ES EE 1 Furthermore, this case has already been pending for over two years, and the 2 | deadlines to complete non-expert discovery (September 2, 2022) and file dispositive 3 | motions (March 1, 2023) have long passed. See ECF No. 21 (granting the parties’ 4 | stipulation to continue deadlines). The Court ultimately finds that Plaintiff has not been 5 | diligent in seeking to file an amended complaint and thus, it need not evaluate Plaintiff's 6 | Motion under Rule 15(a).° 7 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a First Amended 8 | Complaint, ECF No. 23, is DENIED, and his Motion to Strike Defendant’s Objection, ECF 9 | No. 26, is DENIED as moot. Not later than thirty (30) days from the issuance of this 10 | Order, the parties shall file a Joint Notice of Trial Readiness as required under this 11 | Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order. See ECF No. 2, at 5-6. 12 IT |S SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: September 18, 2023 Eo i F _ AMX’ 15 MORRISON C. ENGLA JR) (_) SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5 Defendant did not file an opposition to the pending Motion, but instead, on August 22, 2023, it filed Objections to Plaintiff's Motion, which the Court construes as an untimely opposition brief. See ECF 25 No. 26. Defendant states that it files “this written objection because the oral hearing at which Defendant could raise its objection was vacated by text order.” Id. at 1. However, that same order stated that any 26 opposition shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 230(c), which requires oppositions to be filed and served within 14 days after the motion was filed. See ECF No. 24. The Court admonishes Defendant and its counsel for not complying with the Court’s Order and the Local Rules. Regardless, the Court has an 27 independent duty to analyze the merits of Plaintiffs Motion and as explained above, the Court finds amendment to the Complaint is not warranted at this stage in the litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion 28 | to Strike Defendant's Objection, ECF No. 28, is DENIED as moot.