Ramachandran v. Best Best & Krieger

Background

Satish Ramachandran sought permission to file an “Amended First Supplemental Complaint,” which would have been the eighth version of his pleadings in the dispute. He sought to add the City of Los Altos and Scott Ditfurth as defendants and to add facts to his remaining malicious prosecution claim. Kirk Ballard and Christopher Jordan opposed the motion, and Pamela Jacobs joined their arguments. Best Best & Krieger, a prior defendant that Ramachandran had voluntarily dismissed after the motion was filed, also filed an opposition.

The court had previously set November 30, 2020, as the deadline for amending the pleadings under the ordinary amendment standard. On November 30, Ramachandran moved to supplement his complaint and add a malicious prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted that motion on December 24, 2020. On February 8, 2021, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, leaving only the malicious prosecution claim. Ramachandran filed the present motion on February 25, 2021, nearly three months after the amendment deadline.

Legal Standard

Because the motion came after the deadline in the scheduling order, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16’s “good cause” standard. Under that standard, the party seeking to change the schedule must show that the deadline could not reasonably be met despite diligence. The court explained that the focus is on the moving party’s reasons for the delay, not primarily on whether the opposing parties would be prejudiced. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry ends.

Court’s Analysis

Ramachandran argued that his motion was a constructive response to the court’s February 8, 2021 order. The court rejected that argument because Ramachandran acknowledged that his malicious prosecution claim had become viable on October 20, 2020, when the misdemeanor charge against him was dismissed. That date preceded his first motion to supplement the complaint, and he did not explain why he had failed to include the additional facts and parties earlier.

The court also rejected Ramachandran’s reliance on the absence of prejudice and his arguments about the merits of the malicious prosecution claim. Those points did not address the required showing of diligence under Rule 16. The court agreed with Ballard and Jordan that Ramachandran had not been diligent and therefore could not show good cause. Because of that conclusion, the court did not reach the defendants’ arguments concerning bad faith.

Disposition

The court denied Ramachandran’s motion to amend. It also directed the defendants to file their response to the operative complaint within 30 days of the order. The order did not decide the merits of the remaining malicious prosecution claim.