United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER AFFIRMING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT
AND FILE CROSS COUNTER-CLAIM AND JOIN NECESSARY THIRD PARTY
DEFENDANT KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL INS. CO. INC.
A. OTAKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Reza Lesane (“Plaintiff”) objects to Magistrate
Judge Kenneth J. Mansfield's Order Denying
Plaintiff's Second Motion to Amend the Complaint and File
Cross Counter-Claim and Join Necessary Third Party Defendant
Kaiser Permanente Medical Ins. Co. Inc.
(“Order”). ECF No. 121. This matter shall be decided
without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d). For the
reasons articulated below, the Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge
commenced this action on March 19, 2019 in the Circuit Court
of the First Circuit, State of Hawai‘i. Defendant
Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (“Hawaiian”) removed this
action on April 8, 2019.
Rule 16 Scheduling Order, filed on May 6, 2019, established
October 4, 2019 as the deadline to join additional parties or
to amend the pleadings. ECF No. 19 at ¶ 5.
August 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”). Hawaiian responded with an Answer and
Counterclaim on August 28, 2019.
November 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Second Motion to Amend
the Complaint and File Cross Counter-Claim and Join Necessary
Third Party Defendant Kaiser Permanente Medical Ins. Co. Inc.
ECF No. 65. Magistrate Judge Mansfield denied the motion for
failure to comply with Local Rule 7.8's pre-filing
conference requirement. ECF No. 78. Plaintiff refiled the
motion on November 26, 2019. ECF No. 79.
a hearing on the motion, Magistrate Judge Mansfield issued
his Order on December 18, 2019. He concluded that Plaintiff
failed to establish good cause pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) to
reopen the deadline to add parties/amend the pleadings. ECF
No. 111 at 3-4. He reasoned that Plaintiff was not diligent
in seeking to amend the scheduling order because even
accepting as true Plaintiff's contention that his
proposed amendment is based on new information that Hawaiian
asserts in its Counterclaim, Plaintiff had more than one
month to request leave to file an amended complaint before
October 4, 2019. Id. at 4.
January 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Objection challenging
the entirety of Magistrate Judge Mansfield's analysis.
ECF No. 121 at 1-2.
may object to magistrate judge's pretrial orders.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Local Rule 74.1.
“The district judge in the case must consider timely
objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that
is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) (emphasis added); Doe v. Kamehameha
Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036, 1041
n.4 (9th Cir. 2010).
“clearly erroneous standard is significantly
deferential, requiring a definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed before reversal is
warranted.” Mathews v. Chevron Corp., 362 F.3d
1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotations
omitted). “The reviewing court may not simply
substitute its judgment for that of the deciding
court.” Grimes v. City & Cty. of San
Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation
omitted); see also Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d
1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that a district court may
not overturn a magistrate judge's pretrial order
“simply because [it] might have weighed differently the
various interests and equities”).
argues that he demonstrated good cause to amend his complaint
because he was unaware of the basis for amendment until
Hawaiian filed its Counterclaim on August 28, 2019. And only
then could he submit discovery requests pertaining to
Hawaiian's payment of medical insurance premiums to
Kaiser, the responses to which he received on November 26,
2019. While Plaintiff concedes that he missed the deadline to