Zawacky v. County of Clark

[7] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [8] WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA [10] SUSAN ZAWACKY et al., CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05101-DGE [11] Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 12 v. MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEADLINE (DKT. NO. 107) 13 CLARK COUNTY et al., 14 Defendants. [15] 16 I INTRODUCTION 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for relief from 18 deadline to amend their complaint. (Dkt. No. 107.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court 19 DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion. 20 II BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint in the instant matter on February 17, 2022. (Dkt. 22 No. 1.) The complaint included claims for negligence, assault and battery, and violations of 23 Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . (See id. at [24] 1 11–14.) Plaintiffs did not assert claims for violations of state and federal laws against racial 2 discrimination. 3 Nearly a year later, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to add claims for 4 racial discrimination under Washington Revised Code § 49.60.030 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . (See 5 Dkt. No. 52.) The Court denied this motion given Plaintiffs’ undue delay and the potential 6 prejudice to Defendants. (See Dkt. No. 66.) On June 15, 2023, Plaintiffs file a renewed motion 7 to amend their complaint to add racial discrimination claims. (See Dkt. No. 107.) 8 III DISCUSSION 9 Plaintiffs seek, once again, to amend their complaint to add state and federal racial 10 discrimination claims. (See id. at 4–5.) Plaintiffs justify this renewed request by arguing that 11 “[i]n light of the rescheduled trial, the risk of prejudice to Defendants no longer exists.” (Id. at 12 8.) 13 The Court construes Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to be a belated motion for 14 reconsideration of the Court’s prior order. (See Dkt. No. 66.) The only thing that has changed 15 since the Court last denied such a request is that the Court extended the discovery deadline in 16 light of both parties’ failure to timely complete discovery. (See Dkt. No. 103.) This is not 17 sufficient for the Court to reconsider its prior ruling. See LCR 7(h)(1) (noting that “[m]otions for 18 reconsideration are disfavored.”). 19 Plaintiffs have also failed to demonstrate “good cause” to modify the Court’s scheduling 20 order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).1 “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers [21] 1 Because Plaintiffs seek to modify the Court’s scheduling order, they must first demonstrate good [22] cause before the Court turns to the factors to be weighed when considering a proposed amendment to a complaint. See Jackson v. Calone, No. 216CV00891TLNKJN, 2019 WL 4747811 , at *2 (E.D. [23] Cal. Sept. 30, 2019) (“A plaintiff must first satisfy Rule 16’s ‘good cause’ standard before seeking to amend the complaint under Rule 15.”). [24] 1 the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 2 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). As previously noted, Plaintiffs’ desire to add new claims appears 3 to stem solely from the addition of new counsel and indicates a lack of diligence on behalf of 4 counsel. (Dkt. No. 66 at 2.) 5 Plaintiffs’ original complaint, filed in February 2022, contained allegations relating to 6 racial discrimination and pretextual stops. Plaintiffs specifically alleged that Clark County’s 7 “established practice of racial discrimination, bias, and inadequate training . . . caused deputies in 8 the case of Jenoah Donald to illegally pull over an African American driver.” (See Dkt. No. 1 at 9 11.) Plaintiffs nonetheless chose not to allege violations of state and federal laws against racial 10 discrimination. Addition of counsel, nearly a year after filing the complaint, is not “good cause” 11 to modify the Court’s scheduling order when the possibility of racial discrimination was apparent 12 at the time this suit was filed. See Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 781 13 F.2d 1393 , 1398 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[L]ate amendments to assert new theories are not reviewed 14 favorably when the facts and the theory have been known to the party seeking amendment since 15 the inception of the cause of action.”). 16 IV CONCLUSION 17 Accordingly, and having considered Plaintiffs’ motion (Dkt. No. 107), the briefing of the 18 parties, and the remainder of the record, the Court finds and ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion is 19 DENIED. [24] 1 Dated this 17th day of July, 2023. [2] A [3] David G. Estudillo 4 United States District Judge