Vaden v. Linn Star Transfer, Inc.

Background

Faye Vaden and Alma Jackson sued Linn Star Transfer, Inc. and Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc., alleging that negligent manufacturing and installation of a gas dryer caused a gas leak. The plaintiffs alleged that the leak resulted from a product defect and Linn Star’s failure to properly tighten the dryer’s gas-line connector. The defendants removed the case from state court based on diversity jurisdiction.

The court’s July 17, 2019 scheduling order set September 14, 2019, as the deadline to amend the pleadings. On October 1, two weeks after that deadline, the plaintiffs sought permission to add Home Depot, which sold the dryer and installation kit, and Dyshun Mitchell and Nicolaus Zapata, who performed the installation. The plaintiffs also sought to modify or stay the case schedule and to expedite the hearing on those motions.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) allows a scheduling order to be changed only for “good cause” and with the judge’s permission. The court explained that good cause primarily depends on whether the party seeking the change acted diligently. If the party was not diligent, the court need not consider whether the opposing party would be harmed.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown diligence. Counsel acknowledged that she missed the amendment deadline because she was occupied with another trial and relied on co-counsel. The court stated that counsel remained independently responsible to her clients.

The court also found that the plaintiffs knew about the proposed defendants before the deadline. Initial disclosures identified Mitchell and Zapata as installers, and other case documents identified Home Depot as the recipient of the dryer and installation kit. The court was not persuaded by counsel’s explanation that she did not understand Home Depot’s possible role until after the deadline or that she had difficulty contacting the landlord. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not established good cause to amend the complaint late.

As to the scheduling request, the plaintiffs did not propose alternative dates or specific changes and primarily cited counsel’s obligations in other cases. The court found that this did not establish good cause, particularly because two months remained before the close of discovery and trial was scheduled for June 29, 2020.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to amend the complaint; denied the motion to modify the case schedule; and denied as moot the motion to expedite the hearing. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. also reminded plaintiffs’ counsel that she was responsible for learning and following the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s orders throughout the litigation.