Lopez v. Comcast Cable Communications Management LLC

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01220

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting {{26}} Motion for Leave to Amend; Modifying Case Deadlines ; Plaintiff Emanuel Lopez is required to E-FILE amended document no later than 1/19/16. Comcast shall file response no later than 2/9/16.The Court VACATES the hearing set for 1/26/16.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EMANUEL LOPEZ, 7 Case No. 15-cv-01220-YGR Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 9 AMEND; MODIFYING CASE DEADLINES COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS 10 MANAGEMENT LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 26 11 Defendant. 12 Plaintiff Emanuel Lopez brings this action against Defendant Comcast Cable Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Communications LLC ("Comcast"). Plaintiff alleges claims for disability discrimination and 14 retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") in relation to his 15 employment with Comcast. Subsequent to the March 14, 2015 filing of the complaint herein, 16 Plaintiff was terminated by Comcast. Plaintiff now seeks to amend his complaint to add a new 17 claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, as well as additional factual 18 allegations to support his existing claims. Comcast argues that the Court should deny the motion 19 because Lopez has delayed unreasonably and it will be prejudiced by allowing the amendment. 20 Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, and for 21 the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion for Leave to Amend and 22 CONTINUES the deadlines in the case as set forth herein.1 23 A party seeking to amend his complaint after the date specified in the scheduling order 24 must show good cause for the amendment under Rule 16(b), then, if "good cause" be shown, the 25 party must demonstrate that the amendment was proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. 26 1 27 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court 28 VACATES the hearing set for January 26, 2016. 1 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). Rule 16(b)'s good cause 2 standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the extension. Id. at 609. Federal 3 Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that "[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend the 4 complaint] when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The court considers the following 5 factors in deciding whether to grant leave to amend: (1) whether the amendment was filed with 6 undue delay; (2) whether the movant has requested the amendment in bad faith or as a dilatory 7 tactic; (3) whether movant was allowed to make previous amendments which failed to correct 8 deficiencies of the complaint; (4) whether the amendment will unduly prejudice the opposing 9 party; and (5) whether the amendment is futile. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 10 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). These five factors are not 11 weighed equally and prejudice is the most important factor. Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 12 1052. "Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there exists Northern District of California United States District Court 13 a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend." Id. (emphasis in original). 14 The Court has considered the arguments presented by the parties and finds that leave to 15 amend should be granted. The record reveals no undue or bad faith delay in seeking to amend the 16 complaint and, to the extent the request to amend the complaint would create any prejudice under 17 the current schedule, such prejudice is completely eliminated by a brief continuance of those 18 deadlines. Therefore, the Court modifies the deadlines in this case as follows: 19 Event Current Deadline New Deadline 20 Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff: April 1, 2016 June 1, 2016 Disclosure Of Experts 21 (Retained/Nonretained): Opening: June 24, 2016 August 19, 2016 22 Rebuttal: July 15, 2016 September 9, 2016 23 Expert Discovery Cutoff: August 5, 2016 September 30, 3016 Dispositive Motions To Be June 7, 2016 August 23, 2016 24 Heard By: Compliance Hearing Friday August 19, 2016 October 21, 2016 25 Joint Pretrial Conference August 26, 2016 October 28, 2016 Statement: 26 Pretrial Conference: September 9, 2016 November 9, 2016 27 at 9:00 a.m. at 2:00 p.m. Trial Date: September 26, 2016 Tuesday, November 29, 28 at 8:30 a.m. 2016 at 8:30 a.m. 2 1 Accordingly, the Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his amended 2 complaint no later than January 19, 2016. Comcast shall file its response no later than February 3 9, 2016. 4 This terminates Docket No. 26. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: January 15, 2016 7 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3