Richard Dobbs v. Terex Corporation, 5:16-cv-02547-SB-KK

Plaintiff Richard Dobbs, a heavy equipment repairman, was injured when a Genie GTH-1056 telehandler unexpectedly drove while he was beneath it, resulting in below-knee amputation.
Dobbs sued Genie Industries, TXI Riverside Inc. (TXI), and Doe defendants in state court; defendants removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint asserting product liability (strict liability and negligence) and negligence claims against Genie and TXI; Terex was previously dismissed.
After the scheduling-order deadline to add parties, Dobbs moved to further amend the FAC to add United Rentals (North America) Inc. as a defendant.
TXI did not oppose the motion; plaintiff argued he lacked earlier notice of United Rentals as a potential defendant.
The court evaluated the motion under Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard (scheduling deadline passed) and then Rule 15(a)’s factors for leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 16(b) permits amendment after scheduling deadline	Dobbs lacked earlier notice of United Rentals and thus could not timely add it	TXI disputed plaintiff’s characterization of its document production but did not oppose amendment	Court applied Rule 16(b) and found no obstacle because TXI did not oppose and plaintiff was sufficiently diligent
Whether leave to amend should be granted under Rule 15(a)	Amendment is proper, not in bad faith, not futile, and causes no prejudice	TXI did not oppose; no prejudice shown	Court granted leave to amend under Rule 15(a); found no bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility

Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 1997) (Rule 15(a) liberal amendment standard)
Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000) (Rule 16 applies after scheduling order sets amendment deadline)
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreation, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (good cause under Rule 16 focuses on diligence)
Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002) (scheduling order may be modified if deadlines cannot be met despite diligence)
Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1985) (district court has broad discretion over pretrial scheduling)
Jordan v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1982) (leave to amend entrusted to trial court discretion)
Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2004) (factors for leave to amend: bad faith, delay, prejudice, futility, prior amendments)
Nunes v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2003) (same Rule 15(a) standards)
Texaco v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1991) (prejudice as key factor in amendment analysis)
Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (presumption in favor of granting leave absent prejudice)
Griggs v. Pace Am. Group, Inc., 170 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 1999) (inferences drawn in favor of granting leave under Rule 15(a))