Arebalo v. Apple, Inc.

Background

Joshua Arebalo, proceeding without a lawyer, sued his former employer, Apple, Inc. He generally alleged that Apple wrongfully terminated him because of disability-related hand pain associated with carpal tunnel and retaliated against him for requesting reasonable accommodations. His original complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and for wrongful termination in violation of California public policy under the Fair Employment Housing Act.

Arebalo moved for permission to file a first amended complaint. He proposed adding claims for defamation, civil conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, unfair business practices, and unfair labor practices. He also sought to add punitive damages and injunctive relief. Apple opposed the motion. By the time Arebalo filed it, fact and expert discovery had concluded, and Apple had filed a motion for summary judgment.

Legal standard

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 applied because Arebalo sought to amend after the deadline in the court’s scheduling order. Rule 16 permits changing that schedule only for “good cause” and the judge’s consent. The main consideration is whether the party seeking amendment acted diligently. Only if that requirement is met does the court consider the more flexible amendment standard under Rule 15.

Court’s reasoning

Arebalo argued that evidence produced during discovery led to the proposed amendment. He identified testimony by David Pratt and a Request for Termination that he said Pratt had fraudulently submitted. The court concluded that challenging Pratt’s credibility did not amount to new evidence excusing the delay. The court acknowledged that the Request for Termination might have been evidence Arebalo did not previously possess, but found that Arebalo had known about it since Pratt’s deposition in or before October 2020 and waited more than three months before filing his motion.

Arebalo also argued that his former lawyer had failed to include claims and facts he wanted in the original complaint. The court took those allegations seriously but found that Arebalo did not explain why he waited more than six months after learning of the alleged omissions to ask the court to allow an amendment. The court therefore found that he had not acted diligently.

The court separately found that allowing the amendment would significantly prejudice Apple. The proposed complaint would roughly double the factual allegations and add five claims after discovery had closed. Apple would likely need additional depositions, written discovery, and possibly changes to its initial disclosures. Because Apple’s summary-judgment motion was pending, amendment would also require a new responsive pleading, potentially a motion to dismiss, and a new summary-judgment motion, causing additional time and expense.

Disposition

The court concluded that Arebalo had not shown good cause under Rule 16, so it did not conduct a Rule 15 analysis. Judge Edward J. Davila denied Arebalo’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. The order addressed only that motion.