Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 90-15975

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: FERNANDEZ
• Citation: 975 F.2d 604
• Parties: Dairl JOHNSON; Claudine Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MAMMOTH RECREATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 90-15975,90-15975
• Decision Date: 14 September 1992

Page 604

975 F.2d 604

23 Fed.R.Serv.3d 621

Dairl JOHNSON; Claudine Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MAMMOTH RECREATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 90-15975.

United States Court of Appeals,

Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 20, 1992.

Decided Sept. 14, 1992.

Thomas J. Brandi, Bianco, Brandi & Jones, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Paul S. Rosenlund and Philip D. Witte, Hancock, Rothert & Bunshoft, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Before: WIGGINS, O'SCANNLAIN and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge:

Dairl Johnson ¹ appeals the district court's denial of his motion to amend his complaint. The court found that Johnson failed to demonstrate circumstances that would permit joining an additional party after the joinder cut-off date, and granted summary judgment in favor of Mammoth Recreations. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The underlying facts are straightforward. On December 23, 1987 Johnson was enjoying a day of recreational skiing at the Mammoth Mountain ski resort in Mono County, California. Johnson alleges that he was injured when a "T-bar [ski] lift ... suddenly released" and threw him to the ground.

He filed a diversity action against the ski lift manufacturer, Dopplemayr Ski Lift Company, Ltd., ² and Mammoth Recreations, Inc. Mammoth Recreations is a holding company which owns a majority of the stock of Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, Inc., the entity which actually owns and operates the ski resort. The complaint did not name Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, Inc. as a defendant despite the fact that it alleged that the ski resort had been negligently operated and maintained.

In his complaint, Johnson alleged:

At all times herein mentioned defendants, owned, controlled, maintained, managed, and operated a ski resort commonly known as Mammoth Ski Resort in Mono County, California....

In its answer, Mammoth Recreations "denie[d] each and every ... allegation" of this paragraph. Apparently, Johnson failed to note that Mammoth Recreations had denied ownership and control of the ski resort.

The litigation then proceeded. In due course, the district court filed a Scheduling Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) which established, inter alia, a cut-off date for joining additional parties. The order stated:

JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENTS

All parties are granted six months to move to join additional parties; thereafter, the court will not entertain such motion unless extraordinary circumstances are demonstrated.

No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted except with leave of court, good cause having been shown.

Since the Scheduling Order was filed on April 17, 1989, the cut-off date for joining additional parties was October 17, 1989, six months later.

On July 7, 1989, a date still well within the amendment cut-off date, Mammoth responded to an interrogatory and again informed Johnson that "Mammoth Recreations, Inc. neither owns nor operates the [ski resort] premises." It further informed

Johnson that "the lift was inspected by agents or employees of Mammoth Mountain Ski Area," not by Mammoth Recreations, Inc. Johnson still failed to amend his complaint to add Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, Inc. as a defendant

Mammoth Recreations made one final overture. On July 10, 1989 its counsel sent Johnson's counsel a letter which expressly noted the complaint's deficiency:

As you should be able to determine, Mammoth Recreations, Inc. is not a proper defendant in this case. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. is merely a holding company for the majority of shares of Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, the corporation which owns, maintains and operates the ski resort by the same name. Please advise if you are willing to stipulate to dismiss Mammoth Recreations, Inc. from this action and substitute Mammoth Mountain Ski Area in its place.

Johnson's attorneys did not respond to this letter and now claim that they never received it. ³ They claim they were unaware of the existence of Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, Inc. and its relationship with Mammoth Recreations until February 15, 1990, four months after the joinder cut-off date, when Mammoth Recreations's counsel informed them of Mammoth Recreations's intention to move for summary judgment.

The district court considered Johnson's motion to amend and Mammoth Recreations's motion for summary judgment. The court found that Johnson had failed to establish the "extraordinary circumstances" that would merit joinder of a party after the Scheduling Order's joinder cut-off date. It also found that the complaint failed to allege any theory of liability by which Mammoth Recreations might be liable. Accordingly, it granted summary judgment in Mammoth Recreations's favor.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court had jurisdiction to hear this diversity action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We have jurisdiction to review the court's final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

"The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation, and its decisions regarding the preclusive effect of a pretrial order ... will not be disturbed unless they evidence a clear abuse of discretion." Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir.1985).

DISCUSSION

This case turns on a single, narrow question: when and under what circumstances may a party join an additional defendant once the district court has entered an order limiting the time for joinder.

Johnson discusses at length the liberal amendment policy of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Mammoth Recreations does not dispute that Rule 15's policy favoring amendments is applied liberally by us. Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir.1989); DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 185-87 (9th Cir.1987). Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend should be granted as a matter of course, at least until the defendant files a responsive pleading. After that point, leave to amend should be granted unless amendment would cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay. Id.

Nonetheless, Rule 15 does not provide the standards by which we consider Johnson's motion to amend to add Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, Inc. as a defendant. Once the district court had filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 which established a timetable for amending pleadings that

rule's standards controlled. Rule 16 provides in part

(b) [The district court] ... shall, after consulting with the attorneys for the parties and any unrepresented parties, by a scheduling conference, ... enter a scheduling order that limits the time

(1) to join other parties and to amend the pleadings;

(2) to file and hear motions; and

(3) to complete discovery.

....

The order shall issue as soon as practicable but in no event more than 120 days after filing of the complaint. A schedule shall not be modified except by leave of ... [the district court] upon a showing of good cause.

Thus, Johnson's ability to amend his complaint was governed by Rule 16(b), not Rule 15(a). See Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83, 85 (M.D.N.C.1987) (party seeking to amend pleading after date specified in scheduling order must first show "good cause" for amendment under Rule 16(b), then, if "good cause" be shown, the party must demonstrate that amendment was proper under Rule 15); see also Financial Holding Corp. v. Garnac Grain Co., 127 F.R.D. 165, 166 (W.D.Mo.1989) (same).

Except in certain classes of cases not applicable here, ⁴ the district court is required to enter a pretrial scheduling order within 120 days of the filing of the complaint. ⁵ The scheduling order "control[s] the subsequent course of the action" unless modified by the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e). Orders entered before the final pretrial conference may be modified upon a showing of "good cause," Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b), but orders "following a final pretrial conference shall be modified only to prevent manifest injustice." Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e). In this case, the scheduling order was entered on April 17, 1989, and the final pretrial conference was set for August 13, 1990. Thus, Johnson could have sought to modify the order had he shown "good cause" for doing so.

Johnson did not specifically request that the court modify its scheduling order; he merely moved to amend his complaint. He points out that some courts have considered a motion to amend the complaint as a motion to amend the scheduling order and the court's denial of that motion a denial of a motion to amend the scheduling order. See Spiller v. Ella Smithers Geriatric Ctr., 919 F.2d 339, 343 (5th Cir.1990) (district court impliedly granted motion to amend scheduling order by allowing defendant to move for summary judgment after cut-off date for pretrial motions); R.L. Clark Drilling Contractors, Inc. v. Schramm, Inc., 835 F.2d 1306, 1308 (10th Cir.1987) (party's assertion of an issue not listed in the pretrial order was deemed a request to modify that order despite the fact that no formal motion to amend the pretrial order had been made). We have suggested the contrary. See Jauregui v. City of Glendale, 852 F.2d 1128, 1133-34 (9th Cir.1988) (party bound by facts stipulated to in pretrial order when party failed to seek a modification of order from the district court); U.S. Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir.1985) (court may deny as untimely a motion filed after the scheduling order cut-off date where no request to modify the order has been made); see also Dedge v. Kendrick, 849 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir.1988) (motion filed after the scheduling order cut-off date is untimely and may be denied solely on that ground).

We see no reason to deviate from that approach here, but the result would not change if Johnson's motion to amend the complaint were...