Filed: Sep. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER [Docket Nos. 48, 51, 55, 56] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' joint request to grant Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and extend discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. Docket Nos. 55, 56. The parties submit that granting the motion for leave to amend (Docket No. 48) and to extend discovery would provide the most efficient method to proceed and would permit the parties to continue with the case while seeking resolution. Docket Nos.
Summary: ORDER [Docket Nos. 48, 51, 55, 56] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is the parties' joint request to grant Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and extend discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. Docket Nos. 55, 56. The parties submit that granting the motion for leave to amend (Docket No. 48) and to extend discovery would provide the most efficient method to proceed and would permit the parties to continue with the case while seeking resolution. Docket Nos. ..
More
ORDER
[Docket Nos. 48, 51, 55, 56]
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is the parties' joint request to grant Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and extend discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. Docket Nos. 55, 56. The parties submit that granting the motion for leave to amend (Docket No. 48) and to extend discovery would provide the most efficient method to proceed and would permit the parties to continue with the case while seeking resolution. Docket Nos. 55 at 2-3, 56 at 2-3.
I. MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
When a party moves to amend the pleadings after the expiration of the deadline established in the scheduling order, courts review the motion through a two-step process. First, courts treat the motion as seeking to amend the scheduling order, which is governed by the "good cause" standard outlined in Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). When "good cause" has been established under Rule 16(b), courts will then examine whether amendment is proper under the standards outlined in Rule 15(a). Rule 15(a) provides that "[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires," and that there is a strong public policy in favor of permitting amendment. Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir. 1999).
The Court finds that good cause exists to amend the complaint under Rule 16(b) and Rule 15(a). See Docket Nos. 48, 51, 55, 56. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend at Docket No. 48, and further GRANTS the parties' request to grant Plaintiff's motion. Docket No. 55, 56. No later than September 14, 2018, Plaintiff shall file its amended complaint on the docket. As a result, Defendant has agreed to WITHDRAW its motion to dismiss at Docket No. 51. See Docket No. 55 at 6, 56 at 6.
II. MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
The Court finds good cause exists for an extension of the requested discovery deadlines by ninety days. See Local Rule 26-4. Accordingly, the joint motion to extend discovery at Docket No. 56 is GRANTED and the Court SETS deadlines as follows:
• Discovery cutoff: November 12, 2018
• Dispositive motions: December 11, 2018
• Joint proposed pretrial order: January 10, 2019 or 30 days after resolution of dispositive motions
IT IS SO ORDERED.
