Khan v. SAP Labs, LLC
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-07490
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Khan v. SAP Labs, Judge Freeman denied Khan’s motions to amend his complaint and change the scheduling deadline because he lacked good cause.
Muhammad Khan and SAP Labs, LLC. Khan could not add the proposed 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim, and the operative claim remained the California Labor Code section 1102.5 claim.
What happened
Khan v. SAP Labs, LLC involved Muhammad Khan’s request to add a race-discrimination claim under federal law to his employment case against SAP Labs, LLC. The court’s scheduling order had set November 20, 2020 as the deadline to seek amendment, but Khan filed his request more than two months later.
Khan said he recently learned about the federal claim from an employment attorney and had limited access to legal resources while incarcerated. SAP argued that he had not shown good cause to change the deadline. The court found that Khan was trying to add a new legal theory based on facts he had known throughout the case, and that this did not show the required diligence.
The court denied both motions: the motion for leave to file a third amended complaint and the motion for relief from the scheduling order. Judge Freeman did not allow the proposed federal claim to be added, and the existing claim under California Labor Code section 1102.5 remained the operative claim.
The detailed version
- Khan v. SAP Labs, LLC · No. 5:18-cv-07490
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 26, 2021
Background
Muhammad Khan, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an employment-discrimination action against SAP Labs, LLC. His original complaint alleged race and sexual-orientation harassment and discrimination, as well as retaliation. After earlier motion practice and amendments, the operative second amended complaint contained one remaining claim against SAP: a claim under California Labor Code section 1102.5.
The court issued a scheduling order setting November 20, 2020 as the deadline for motions to amend the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
- SAP answered the operative complaint on August 18,
- On February 2, 2021, Khan moved for permission to file a third amended complaint adding a race-discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. §
- He also moved for relief from the scheduling order under Rule 16, which governs changes to court-ordered deadlines.
Parties’ Positions
Khan said he had recently learned about the potential section 1981 claim after speaking with an employment attorney. He characterized it as a new legal theory based on facts already pleaded. Khan also submitted a declaration describing lockdowns and other limits on his access to the prison law library and other resources. He argued that these circumstances showed diligence and good cause for missing the amendment deadline.
SAP argued that Khan had not sought relief from the amendment deadline before moving to amend and had not shown good cause to change the scheduling order.
Court’s Analysis
Because Khan sought amendment after the scheduling-order deadline, the court applied Rule 16’s “good cause” standard rather than Rule 15’s generally more permissive amendment standard. The court explained that the central question under Rule 16 is whether the party seeking the change acted diligently. If the party was not diligent, the inquiry ends.
The court noted that Khan had alleged race discrimination in his original complaint and had asserted race-discrimination claims under California law in earlier pleadings. His proposed section 1981 claim was therefore a new legal theory based on facts he had known during the litigation. The court concluded that discovering a new legal theory through additional research did not establish diligence or good cause. It also found that Khan’s prior participation in the case, including filing the original complaint, amending it twice, and filing numerous motions, supported denying permission to reopen the pleadings six months after SAP answered and months after the amendment deadline.
The court accepted for purposes of its analysis Khan’s assertions that he had been unaware of section 1981 until recently and that incarceration had made litigating more difficult. Even so, it held that ignorance of the law and incarcerated, self-represented status did not constitute good cause to modify the scheduling order.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied Khan’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint and denied Khan’s motion for relief from the scheduling order. The proposed section 1981 claim was not added.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.