Hawthorne v. Bennington
3:16-cv-00235
| D. Nev. | Oct 8, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Adam Hawthorne, an NDOC inmate, alleges a January 2, 2016 incident in which a nurse refused to render aid for a severe back spasm; his operative Third Amended Complaint asserts Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and First Amendment retaliation claims (Fourteenth Amendment claim was dismissed).
- Hawthorne originally named Mackenzie Bennington as the nurse; during discovery he learned two nurses named Bennington were present and on August 13, 2020 discovered the female nurse was actually Whitney Bennington (Mackenzie’s wife).
- Hawthorne moved to modify the scheduling order, to amend the complaint to add Whitney as a defendant, and to extend discovery. Defendants opposed the motions, principally arguing the amendment would be time-barred and relation back under Rule 15(c) was not satisfied.
- The court found Hawthorne acted diligently after learning the correct identity and granted modification of the scheduling order.
- The court granted leave to amend to add Whitney, concluding the amendment was not futile because the claim relates back under Nevada law (notice/identity-of-interest imputed).
- The court denied the discovery extension as to Mackenzie (discovery complete) but granted a 60-day limited extension to pursue discovery as to Whitney and ordered the AG to accept service and respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether scheduling order should be modified (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) good cause) | Hawthorne promptly moved after learning the correct identity (filed 4 days later) showing diligence | Opposed generally | Granted — good cause; plaintiff acted diligently |
| Whether leave to amend to add Whitney is futile because of statute of limitations | Amendment relates back to original timely complaint due to a reasonable identity mistake and imputed notice | Time-barred; Rule 15(c) not satisfied because Whitney lacked notice she was the proper party | Granted — amendment not futile; relates back |
| Whether relation back is satisfied (Nevada law identity-of-interest test) | Identity of interest exists: spouses, both NDOC nurses present, common representation by AG, complaint referred to “Ms. Bennington”/“she” | No evidence Whitney knew she was the proper defendant; denies prejudice argument | Court imputes notice/knowledge under Costello; relation back found; no prejudice shown |
| Whether discovery deadline should be extended | Seeks additional time (66 days) to complete discovery, especially after learning the correct nurse’s identity | Opposes extension as to Mackenzie (discovery completed) | Granted in part: denied as to Mackenzie; 60-day limited extension for discovery as to Whitney only |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000) (good-cause standard for modifying scheduling orders focuses on diligence)
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (diligence is the primary consideration for schedule modification)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (leave to amend should be freely given absent futility, undue delay, bad faith, or prejudice)
- Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (factors to consider when deciding leave to amend)
- Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1986) (relation back doctrine governs amendments seeking to add parties after statute of limitations)
- Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2014) (federal courts apply forum state statute of limitations to §1983 claims)
- Costello v. Casler, 127 Nev. 436, 254 P.3d 631 (Nev. 2011) (Nevada Rule 15(c) relation-back test; notice can be imputed when parties share an identity of interest)