Rush v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc.

MEMORANDUM

Sandi Rush appeals from the district .court’s grant of summary judgment to ap-pellees on her claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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.’ ” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th Cir.1985)). Similarly, “[t]he district court’s exclusion of evidence in a summary judgment motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir.2002).

I.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rush leave to amend her complaint. Even if Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903 (9th Cir.2011), effected a change in the pleading standard — a question we need not and do not reach — Rush failed.to demonstrate “good cause” to amend the complaint after the deadline for doing so under the district court’s scheduling order had…