Tapia v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 5:14-cv-00624

Plaintiff Kathya Tapia filed a putative employment class action against Sterling Jewelers Inc. and Signet Jewelers Ltd.; she seeks to amend to add successor-liability claims against predecessor Ultra Stores, Inc.
The operative complaint was originally filed in state court; Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a first amended class action complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).
The court’s scheduling order set an amendment deadline of October 6, 2014; no subsequent order extended that deadline.
Plaintiff filed the motion to amend after the scheduling-order deadline and therefore must show "good cause" under Rule 16(b)(4) (not just Rule 15(a)).
Plaintiff argued various bases for good cause (alleged class settlement offers, that Ultra need not be named to allege predecessor liability, prior Rule 26(f) statements reserving a right to amend, and the purposes of Rule 16), but admitted uncertainty about settlement offers and knew of Ultra’s existence by at least May 2014.
The court concluded Plaintiff failed to show diligence or other good cause to modify the scheduling-order deadline and denied the motion as untimely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 16(b)'s "good cause" standard was satisfied to permit amendment after the scheduling-order deadline	Tapia contends circumstances (discovery re: Ultra, settlement offers) justify amendment despite the deadline	Defendants contend the deadline was controlling and Plaintiff lacked good cause and diligence	Denied: Plaintiff failed to show good cause or diligence under Rule 16(b)
Whether alleged settlement offers to class members supply good cause to amend	Tapia argued settlement offers warrant late amendment	Defendants disputed adequacy and timeliness of that basis	Denied: Plaintiff admitted she lacked a clear understanding of the offers when moving, so offers do not supply good cause
Whether Tapia needed to name Ultra Stores to allege predecessor liability	Tapia asserted Ultra need not be named to plead predecessor liability	Defendants argued timeliness/noncompliance with the scheduling order	Court held this argument does not satisfy Rule 16(b) good-cause requirement
Whether party statements in Rule 26(f) reports preserved a right to amend after the court deadline	Tapia relied on joint case-management reports saying amendment might follow discovery	Defendants relied on the court’s scheduling order as controlling	Court held party statements cannot override court deadlines; Plaintiff should have moved to modify the scheduling order

Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1990) (leave to amend is generally granted liberally)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (factors that may justify denying leave to amend)
Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561 (9th Cir. 1994) (standards for denying amendment)
In re W. States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2013) (Rule 16(b) good-cause standard and focus on diligence)
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (scheduling orders are important and cannot be disregarded lightly)