Smith v. The Pasha Group
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:21-cv-04250
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Smith v. Sunrise Operations, LLC, Judge Chesney denied Smith’s motion to add allegations because he lacked good cause and the amendment would prejudice defendants.
Harvey Smith was not permitted to add the proposed allegations to his complaint. Sunrise Operations, LLC and the other named defendants avoided the proposed amendment, reopening of discovery, and a possible trial continuance.
What happened
In Harvey Smith v. Sunrise Operations, LLC, et al., Smith sought permission to file a second amended complaint. His existing complaint alleged that he injured his back while moving heavy boxes in the rain on the defendants’ vessel.
Smith wanted to add allegations about further injuries after the vessel reached a dock in China, including exposure to toxic fumes. Sunrise Operations opposed the request, and Smith did not file a reply.
Judge Maxine Chesney denied the motion. She found that Smith had not shown good cause to change the scheduling deadline and that the proposed amendment would prejudice the defendants by requiring reopened discovery and a delayed trial. The judge also vacated the scheduled hearing.
The detailed version
- Smith v. The Pasha Group · No. 3:21-cv-04250
- Maxine Chesney
- Nov. 7, 2022
Background
The operative pleading was Smith’s First Amended Complaint. It alleged that on November 6, 2020, while working on a defendant’s vessel, Smith was required to move heavy boxes in the rain, slipped, and injured his back.
Smith moved for leave, or permission, to file a Second Amended Complaint. The proposed amendment would add allegations that, after the incident, the vessel arrived at a dock in China and Smith suffered additional injuries, including injuries from exposure to toxic fumes.
Court’s analysis
The court considered the parties’ written submissions and found the matter suitable for decision without the scheduled hearing. The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which allows a scheduling order to be changed only for “good cause.” The court explained that good cause requires showing that the deadline could not be met despite the moving party’s diligence.
The court found that Smith had not made that showing. It also found that the proposed amendment would prejudice the defendant because the deadlines for completing fact discovery and designating experts had passed. Adding the new claims would require reopening discovery and continuing the trial date, which the court treated as prejudice and disruption to the court’s schedule.
Ruling
The court denied Smith’s motion for leave to amend. It also vacated the hearing scheduled for November 18, 2022. Judge Maxine Chesney did not decide the underlying injury allegations in this order; the ruling concerned whether Smith could amend his complaint after the scheduling deadlines had passed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.