From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Cnty. of Solano

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 23, 2022
2:21-cv-01045-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal. Jun. 23, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-01045-KJM-AC

06-23-2022

Eliesa Rene Brown, Plaintiffs, v. County of Solano, et. al., Defendants.


ORDER

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Eliesa Rene Brown's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. ECF No. 15. Defendants County of Solano, Fairfield Family Health Services, and Sharon L. Collins have indicated through counsel that they do not oppose the motion, but they have not stipulated to the filing. Id. at 2, 9. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.

I. DISCUSSION

Ms. Brown's action is for medical malpractice. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. Generally, Ms. Brown alleges a nurse practitioner breached the standard of care by failing to treat her chronic pulmonary obstructive disease. Compl. ¶¶ 22-27. Ms. Brown now seeks leave to amend her complaint and name radiologists Cynthia Tan, Christine L. Vetter, Robinson Yu, and Solano Diagnostics Imaging (formerly known as Bay Imaging Consultants) as defendants in place of DOES 1, 2, 3, 4. Mot. at 2. 1

When a party seeks to amend its complaint after a Rule 16 scheduling order has been issued, as is the case here, the court must first consider whether to amend that scheduling order. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Johnson v. St. Mary, No. 06-0508, 2007 WL 1100507, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2007) (“[A]pplying Johnson [v. Mammoth Recreations] . . . once the district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, a motion to amend the pleadings is governed first by Rule 16(b), and only secondarily by Rule 15(a).”), findings and recommendations adopted, 2007 WL 1365400 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2007). Under Rule 16(b)(4), a movant must demonstrate “good cause” to amend a scheduling order. Mammoth, 975 F.2d at 608. “The ‘good cause' standard ‘focuses on the diligence of the party seeking amendment.'” St. Mary, 2007 WL 1100507, at *1. “Relevant inquiries [into diligence] include: whether the movant was diligent in helping the court to create a workable Rule 16 order; whether matters that were not, and could not have been, foreseeable at the time of the scheduling conference caused the need for amendment; and whether the movant was diligent in seeking amendment once the need to amend became apparent.” Id.

Here, plaintiff's request for leave to modify the scheduling order is supported by good cause under Rule 16(b). Her proposed amendment incorporates what she learned between March and May of 2022, and she filed this motion without delay. Mot. at 3. Defendants have not argued otherwise.

If a party shows good cause to amend the scheduling order, it must next show the complaint may be amended under Rule 15. See Mammoth, 975 F.2d at 608. Rule 15(a)(2) provides, “The court should freely give [leave to amend] when justice so requires,” and the Ninth Circuit has “stressed Rule 15's policy of favoring amendments.” Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989). When a court considers a motion to amend, it “must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15-to facilitate decisions on the merits rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)). But a district court may deny a request for leave to amend if the amendment would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates undue delay. 2 Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011). Of these factors, prejudice is the focus. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). Although new claims against new defendants can impose an “acute threat of prejudice,” that threat is minimal when the case “is still at the discovery stage with no trial date pending.” See DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at 187-88. The party opposing a request to amend “bears the burden of showing prejudice.” Id. at 187.

Permitting an amendment here would serve the interests of justice and would promote the resolution of this case on its merits. None of the relevant factors weighs against an amendment: the court perceives no bad faith, delays, or prejudice; an amendment would not clearly be an exercise in futility; and the plaintiff has not previously amended her complaint. Defendants do not oppose the motion or offer any arguments contrary to plaintiff's arguments.

II. CONCLUSION

For this reason, the court grants plaintiff's motion for leave to amend.

This order resolves ECF No. 15.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 3


Summaries of

Brown v. Cnty. of Solano

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 23, 2022
2:21-cv-01045-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal. Jun. 23, 2022)
Case details for

Brown v. Cnty. of Solano

Case Details

Full title:Eliesa Rene Brown, Plaintiffs, v. County of Solano, et. al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 23, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-01045-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal. Jun. 23, 2022)