United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. NYE, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Raul Mendez's
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Dkt. 36. The Motion is
fully briefed and ripe for decision. Having reviewed the
record, the Court finds that the parties have adequately
presented the facts and legal arguments in the briefs.
Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and
because the Court finds that the decisional process would not
be significantly aided by oral argument, the Court decides
the pending Motion on the record without oral argument. Dist.
Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1)(B). For the reasons set forth
below, the Court finds good cause to DENY the Motion.
filed this case against Community Health Services, Inc.
("Community Health") as apro se litigant
on September 20, 2016. Dkt. 2. In his Complaint, Mendez
generally alleges that Community Health discriminated against
him on the basis of race, color, and national origin.
other allegations in relation to his claims of
discrimination, Mendez claims he did not receive the same
training as a Caucasian employee who was similarly situated
in the same work position of X-Ray technician at Community
Health. While employed by Community Health, Mendez spoke with
the nursing manager, his supervisor, about his concerns that
the company was engaging in potentially fraudulent behavior.
Mendez claims the clinic was requiring that employees
represent that an X-ray technician performed the X-ray
procedures even though, in practice, lesser-trained medical
assistants were performing them. Mendez asserts he was
ultimately fired from his position at Community Health for
raising these concerns.
Community Health filed its Answer to Mendez's complaint,
the Court entered a case management order requiring the
parties to file all motions to amend no later than February
8, 2018. Dkt. 24, at 2. Neither party filed such a motion
prior to the expiration of the deadline. However, Mendez
filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint on March 4, 2019.
In his Amended Complaint, Mendez seeks to add an additional
Title VII claim of employer retaliation under the First
Amendment. See Dkt. 36.
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that, once a
responsive pleading has been served, a party may amend its
pleading "only with the opposing party's written
consent or the court's leave. The court should freely
give leave when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(2). However, when-as in this case-a party files a
motion to amend after the Court's case management
deadline to amend has passed, district courts in the Ninth
Circuit apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), followed
by a Rulel5(a) analysis. See Johnson v. Mammoth
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992).
Rule 16 provides that "[a] schedule may be modified only
for good cause and with the judge's consent."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). If the party seeking amendment
establishes "good cause" under Rule 16, the party
then must demonstrate that amendment is proper under Rule 15.
Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.
16's good cause inquiry focuses primarily on "the
diligence of the party seeking the amendment."
Id. "Rule 16 was designed to facilitate more
efficient disposition of cases by settlement or by trial. If
disregarded it would 'undermine the court's ability
to control its docket, disrupt the agreed-upon course of the
litigation, and reward the indolent and the
cavalier.'" Walker v. City of Pocatello,
2017 WL 1650014 at *1 (D. Idaho May 1, 2017) (quoting
Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610); see also Simplot
Livestock Co. v. Sutfin Land & Livestock, No.
116-CV-00139-EJL-REB, 2018 WL 563142, at *l (D. Idaho Jan.
25, 2018). The Ninth Circuit has instructed that a
"district court may modify the pretrial schedule 'if
it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the
party seeking the extension.'" Johnson, 975
F.2d at 609 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee's
notes (1983 amendment)).
contrast, under Rule 15, leave to amend a pleading
"shall be freely given when justice so requires."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Leave to amend lies within the sound
discretion of the trial court, which "must be guided by
the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decisions on
the merits, rather than on the pleadings or
technicalities." United States v. Webb, 655
F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). The Rule 15 "policy is
'to be applied with extreme liberality.'"
Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d
1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Nevertheless,
the Supreme Court has instructed district courts to consider
the following factors when deciding whether to grant leave to
amend: "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the
part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the
opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and]
futility of amendment." Id. (quoting Foman
v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
present case, all motions to amend or to join parties were
due no later than February 8, 2018. Dkt. 24, at 2. Mendez did
not file his Motion for Leave to Amend until March 4, 2019-
more than one year after the applicable deadline.
Accordingly, Mendez's request for amendment is governed
by Rule 16(b), ...