Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-05623
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services, Judge Freeman granted amendments, substituted the class representative, and changed the case schedule.
Ronald Chinitz, the certified classes of California residents described in the opinion, and Intero Real Estate Services. The order changed the schedule, allowed an amended complaint, substituted the class representative, and required limited expedited discovery.
What happened
In Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services, Ronald Chinitz asked to change the case schedule, amend the complaint, and replace the named class representative for certified classes of California residents who allegedly received unlawful telemarketing calls from Intero-affiliated real estate agents. Intero opposed the request.
The court found that Chinitz acted diligently after learning that the named plaintiff had contacted Intero directly about settling the case without counsel. It found good cause to change the schedule, no prejudice to Intero, and allowed limited, expedited discovery concerning the amendments. The parties had to provide a discovery plan, complete discovery by September 1, 2021, and file discovery objections by September 7, 2021.
Judge Freeman granted the motion to amend the scheduling order, amend the complaint, and substitute the class representative. The court also terminated Intero’s pending motion to amend its answer as moot because the amended complaint would allow Intero to file an amended answer. The opinion’s final discussion of Intero’s request for another summary-judgment motion is incomplete in the provided text.
The detailed version
- Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services · No. 5:18-cv-05623
- Beth Freeman
- May 4, 2021
Background
Ronald Chinitz moved to amend the scheduling order and complaint and to substitute the named class representative on behalf of certified classes of California residents who allegedly received unlawful telemarketing calls from real estate agents affiliated with Intero Real Estate Services. Intero opposed the motion.
The proposed substitution followed the discovery that the named plaintiff had contacted Intero directly to try to settle the litigation without involving counsel. The court stated that this conduct violated the named plaintiff’s fiduciary duty to absent class members. The court found that Chinitz’s counsel moved promptly after learning of the conduct.
Legal standards
Because the deadline for amending pleadings was governed by a scheduling order, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Under that rule, a scheduling order may be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent; diligence is the primary consideration. After finding good cause under Rule 16, the court considered the liberal amendment standard under Rule 15, including bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, and whether amendment would be futile. Rule 15(d) also permits a supplemental complaint to include later events.
Court’s decision
The court found that Chinitz was diligent and had shown good cause to substitute the named plaintiff and file an amended complaint. It also found no prejudice to Intero, noting that Intero had already sought to amend its answer and that the revised schedule would provide both sides sufficient time to prepare for the November 2021 trial.
The court granted the motion to amend the scheduling order, amend the complaint, and substitute the class representative. It ordered limited, expedited discovery related to the amendments. The parties were required to meet and confer and submit a discovery plan covering the amended complaint and amended answer. All discovery had to be completed by September 1, 2021, and objections to discovery responses had to be filed by September 7, 2021.
The court terminated as moot Intero’s pending motion to amend its answer because allowing the amended complaint necessarily allowed Intero to file an amended answer. The provided opinion text contains an incomplete passage concerning Intero’s request for an additional summary-judgment motion, so its exact ruling on that request cannot be determined from the text supplied.
Disposition
The motion to amend the scheduling order, amend the complaint, and substitute the class representative was granted. Intero’s pending motion to amend its answer was terminated as moot.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.