546 F. App'x 613
9th Cir.2013Background
- Appellants Johnson, Riese, Purvis, and Simmons appeal district court rulings denying a fourth motion to amend, denying additional discovery under Rule 56(d), and granting summary judgment for HP.
- District court held that three Foman v. Davis factors—delay, prejudice, and prior amendment—favor denial of another amendment.
- Appellants knew their operative complaint was narrower than proposed as early as July 2010 but sought leave to amend only at the end of March 2011.
- The proposed amendment would substantially expand the theory of the case and require additional discovery after HP had already answered 112 requests for production and the parties had limited depositions and interrogatories with summary judgment pending.
- Appellants had multiple prior opportunities to cure deficiencies through earlier amendments, supporting the district court’s discretion to deny further amendment.
- The court affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion on any of the challenged rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion | Johnson et al. argue amendment was proper to clarify claims | HP contends delay, prejudice, and prior amendments weighed against amendment | No abuse; amendment denial affirmed |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying further discovery under Rule 56(d) | Additional discovery could defeat summary judgment | Lack of diligence and speculative basis to grant 56(d) relief | No abuse; denial affirmed |
| Whether summary judgment on breach of contract and related claims was proper | Late or underpaid wages show triable issues | Plaintiffs failed to show harm or breach attributable to HP | Summary judgment proper; no triable issues |
| Whether Colorado Labor Code claims survive | Evidence shows systemic compensation concerns harming plaintiffs | Evidence not linked to individuals; no harm shown | Summary judgment proper; claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1991) (prejudice from amendment when discovery and discovery-related items exhausted)
- AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2006) (fifteen-month delay supports denial of amendment)
- McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1988) (prior opportunities to cure deficiencies support denial)
- Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 1998) ( Rule 56(d) diligence standard; need for concrete plan)
- Apache Survival Coal. v. United States, 21 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 1994) (discovery rulings hinge on diligence and speculation)
- Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes, 323 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2003) (early-stage discovery; liberality of Rule 56(f) when no discovery yet)
- Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2012) (abuse of discretion review of amendments)
- Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc standard for reviewing discovery and related rulings)
- Reichert v. Gen. Ins. Co. of Am., 442 P.2d 377 (Cal. 1968) (harm required for breach of contract claims)
- W. Distrib. Co. v. Diodosio, 841 P.2d 1053 (Colo. 1992) (state-law breach elements and damages considerations)