ORDER RE: RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Re: Dkt. No. 410

MARIA-ELENA JAMES, Magistrate Judge.

INTRODUCTION

The Court has twice denied Defendants and Counterclaimants Real Action Paintball, Inc. and K.T. Tran's (together, "Real Action") requests to file a first amended answer and affirmative defenses. First First Am. Answer ("FAA") Order ("First FAA Order"), Dkt. No. 277; Second FAA Order, Dkt. No. 396. Real Action has filed a second Renewed Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16. Mot., Dkt. No. 410. Plaintiff United Tactical Systems, LLC ("UTS") and related Counter-Defendants1 (together with UTS, "Counter-Defendants") filed an Opposition (Dkt. No. 422) and Real Action filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 439). Having considered the parties' positions, the relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court DENIES the Motion for the following reasons.2

BACKGROUND

The Court's prior Orders set forth a detailed factual and procedural history of this action. See Order re: Mots. for Summ. J. ("MSJ Order"), Dkt. No. 348; Second FAA Order.

As is relevant to this Motion, on August 26, 2016, the Court denied Real Action's first Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer. See First FAA Order at 8-9; First FAA Mot., Dkt. No. 247. Real Action sought to assert two new affirmative defenses based on "release" and on statute of limitations grounds. Id. at 8; First Proposed FAA at 34-35, Dkt. No. 247-1. The Court found Real Action failed to provide an adequate factual basis for its defenses, which precluded the Court from "weigh[ing] the factors associated with determining whether leave should be granted." See First FAA Order at 8-9. In addition, the Court found Real Action failed to provide a basis for why justice required the amendment. Id. at 9. The Court accordingly denied Real Action's Motion without prejudice. Id.

Five months later, Real Action again moved for leave to amend its Answer to assert affirmative defenses based on a release and on statute of limitations grounds. Second FAA Mot., Dkt. No. 335; see Second Proposed FAA at 34-35, Dkt. No. 355-1. The Court denied this Motion as well. See Second FAA Order. The Court found Real Action had unduly delayed in seeking amendment and that UTS would be prejudiced if Real Action were permitted to amend its Answer. Id. at 4-8. The Court also noted Real Action had filed its Motion long after the July 14, 2016 deadline to amend the pleadings. Id. at 9 ("Whereas Real Action first moved to amend prior to the amended pleadings deadline, it filed the [second] Motion approximately six months after the deadline."); see Case Management Order, Dkt. No. 218. Real Action had not, however, complied with Civil Local Rule 16-2(d) which, along with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, sets forth the requirements for seeking relief from a case management order. Second FAA Order at 9-10. The Court found that this, coupled with the undue delay and prejudice, warranted denial of the Motion. Id. at 10.

Now for a third time, Real Action seeks leave to amend its Answer to assert two affirmative defenses:

Third Proposed FAA at 34-35, Dkt. No. 410-1 (emphasis in original). These proposed affirmative defenses are largely the same as the affirmative defenses Real Action sought to assert twice before. See First Proposed FAA at 34-35; Second Proposed FAA at 34-35.

DISCUSSION

UTS characterizes Real Action's Motion as "simply a restatement of the evidence and arguments that formed the basis of its previous `renewed' motion, with some additional arguments asserted for the first time in response to the Court's recent ruling denying its motion to amend." Opp'n at 7. UTS argues the Motion is in fact a motion for reconsideration, which should be denied for Real Action's failure to abide by Civil Local Rule 7-9's requirement that Real Action seek leave of Court to file the motion. Id.; see Civ. L.R. 79-(a) ("No party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion."). Real Action disputes the characterization of its Motion as one for reconsideration because "Real Action has never argued granting leave is supported by Rule 16, so the [C]ourt has never considered these arguments." Reply at 4. As such, Real Action argues "[t]here has not been a ruling on these arguments, so there is no such ruling to be `reconsidered.'" Id.

Real Action offers no credible argument as to why it did not discuss Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 in its Second FAA Motion. Real Action explains it "mistakenly believed the Court had authorized the filing of a renewed motion for leave to amend that need only comply with the relatively low threshold of Rule 15(a)(2)[.]" Mot. at 7. Real Action's counsel thus "mistakenly concluded" that the Court's First FAA Order "trumped an obligation to comply with Rule 16." Id.

This assertion is unsupported by declaration. Nor is it plausible. While the Court denied the First FAA Motion without prejudice, the Court gave no indication that "only" Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 would apply to any future motion for leave to file an amended answer. See First FAA Order. Given that Real Action was aware of the amended pleadings deadline and because it filed its Second FAA Motion after it had expired, it should have known that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 would apply. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000) ("Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) liberally allows for amendments to pleadings. In this case, however, the district court correctly found that it should address the issue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 because it had filed a pretrial scheduling order that established a timetable for amending the pleadings, and the deadline had expired before [the plaintiffs] moved to amend.").

Real Action offers no other explanation as to why it did not address Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 in its Second FAA Motion, or why the Court should consider its Rule 16 arguments now. The Court finds the instant Motion is simply an attempt for Real Action to raise an argument that was previously available to it, but which it failed to address in a timely fashion. To the extent the Court could construe it as a motion for reconsideration, it does not fall under one of the grounds set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-9(b).3

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.