United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon's
(“BNYM”) motion for leave to file an amended
complaint. (ECF No. 53). Defendant SFR Investments
Pool 1, LLC, (“SFR”) filed a response (ECF No.
54), to which plaintiff replied (ECF No. 56).
before the court is plaintiff's motion for leave to file
a supplemental brief regarding plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment. (ECF No. 60).
parties are familiar with the facts of the case, as the court
has already issued an order on defendant Royal Highlands
Street and Landscape Maintenance Corporation's
(“RHS”) motion to dismiss. See (ECF No.
52). In the court's order granting defendant RHS's
motion to dismiss, the court stated “if BNYM wishes to
request leave to file an amended complaint, it must do so
within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order.”
August 16, 2017, fourteen days after the court's order
granting defendant's motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed a
motion for leave to amend its complaint. (ECF No. 53). On
November 20, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 57).
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “[t]he
court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so
requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). The United States
Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 15(a) and confirmed the
liberal standard district courts must apply when granting
such leave. In Foman v. Davis, the Supreme Court
In the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as
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, futility of the
amendment, etc.-the leave sought should, as the rules
require, be “freely given.”
371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “a party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party's written consent
or the court's leave.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Local
Rule 15-1(a) states that “the moving party shall attach
the proposed amended pleading to any motion seeking leave of
the court to file an amended pleading.” LR 15-1(a).
“a request for leave to amend made after the entry of a
Rule 16 Scheduling Order is governed primarily by Rule 16(b),
” rather than Rule 15. See Johnson v. Mammoth
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1992).
Rule 16(b) and Local Rules 6-1 and 26-4 require a showing of
“good cause” before modifying a scheduling order.
See id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b); LR 6-1; LR 26-4. Only
when the movant establishes good cause to modify a scheduling
order under Rule 16 does the court consider whether amendment
is proper under Rule 15. See Johnson, 975 F.2d at
good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant's
diligence. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d
1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000). Good cause to extend a
discovery deadline exists “if it cannot reasonably be
met despite the diligence of the party seeking the
extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.
“Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the
party opposing the modification might supply additional
reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon
the moving party's reasons for seeking modification. If
that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”
Id. (internal citation omitted).