Thomas v. The RV Factory, LLC

[8] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [9] FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [11] GREAME W. THOMAS, et al., No. 1:19-cv-00922-NONE-BAM [12] Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 13 RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING v. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 14 FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT THE RV FACTORY, LLC, et al., 15 (Doc. Nos. 27, 33) Defendants. [17] 18 Plaintiffs Greame W. Thomas and Elizabeth Thomas initiated this action in state court on 19 June 4, 2019. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendant The RV Factory, LLC removed the matter to this court on 20 July 3, 2019. (Id.) On February 10, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint, 21 seeking to name Augusta RV, LLC as a defendant. (Doc. No. 20.) The assigned magistrate judge 22 denied the motion without prejudice, reasoning that the October 9, 2019 Scheduling Order in this 23 case set January 10, 2020, as the deadline to amend the pleadings, and plaintiffs had failed to 24 demonstrate good cause for the motion to amend filed a month after that deadline had passed. 25 (Doc. No. 26.) On May 14, 2020, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for leave to file a first 26 amended complaint, again seeking to name Augusta RV, LLC as a defendant in lieu of Doe 1. 27 (Doc. No. 27.) 28 ///// 1 On June 9, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 2 recommending that plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend be denied with prejudice. (Doc. No. 3 33.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that 4 any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) Plaintiffs filed timely 5 objections on June 22, 2020. (Doc. No. 34.) Defendant did not file a response. 6 In the findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge determined that plaintiffs 7 failed to establish that they had been diligent and failed to demonstrate good cause to modify the 8 Scheduling Conference Order to permit the filing of an amended complaint under Federal Rule of 9 Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). (Doc. No. 33 at 5.) Plaintiffs’ central argument in their objections is 10 that they were not dilatory in seeking leave to amend. (Doc. No. 34 at 4–5.) This argument is not 11 persuasive because it is not supported. As the magistrate judge indicated, plaintiffs were, at the 12 very least, aware of defendant’s position that Augusta RV was the proper defendant back in 13 December 2019. Although plaintiffs claim that this assertion could not be substantiated at that 14 time, thereby delaying their motion for leave to amend, plaintiffs have not identified any new 15 information—beyond defendant’s assertions—that triggered the filing of their original motion to 16 amend on February 10, 2020. (See Doc. No. 27 at p. 4.) That filing occurred one month after 17 expiration of the amendment deadline. Plaintiffs still have not explained why they were unable to 18 meet the amendment deadline or otherwise seek modification of that deadline prior to its 19 expiration, despite having two opportunities to do so in writing.1 [20] 1 Plaintiffs correctly suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic may support a finding of good cause 21 under certain circumstances (see Doc. No. 34 at 4), but they entirely fail to explain how that crisis impacted the timing of their motion. Given that the scheduling order required amendment prior [22] to January 10, 2020 and plaintiffs filed their initial motion to amend February 10, 2020, all of 23 which preceded any significant shutdowns in or near this judicial district, the court cannot find COVID-19 is relevant here based on the present record. Plaintiffs’ further suggestion that they 24 have been “denied the opportunity on both the first and the second motions to orally argue their position to address reasons for any perceived delay in the filing of motions for leave to amend” [25] (id) disregards this court’s Local Rules and begs the question. A litigant is not entitled to oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g); Standing Order Re Judicial Emergency (Doc. No. 19-1), nor [26] must a court consider arguments raised for the first time at oral argument, rather in the briefs. See 27 Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 2014 WL 2743244 , at *4 n.2 (S.D. Cal. June 17, 2014) (“the Court need not consider issues raised for the first time during oral argument”). The bottom line is that 28 plaintiffs have fail to demonstrate good cause in their papers, including in their objections. wOAOe 4:2 UV VY YEO IN INE RAINE RVI OO POI Veer TAY VV 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 | de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiffs’ 3 | objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 4 | by proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 6 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 9, 2020 (Doc. No. 33) are 7 ADOPTED IN FULL; 8 2. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to filed a first amended complaint (Doc. No. 27) is 9 DENIED. 10 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a Dated: _ July 24, 2020 Vila AL Aa 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE