Mario De La Fuente Manriquez v. City of Phoenix

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs Mario De La Fuente Manri-quez and Cecelia De La Fuente appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to amend their Complaint and the district court’s order denying their motion for partial summary judgment and granting the City Defendants’ and State Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. We affirm.

(1) The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their Complaint. Plaintiffs filed their motion to amend after entry of the district court’s case management order and after expiration of that order’s 60-day deadline for joining parties and amending pleadings. Under Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order can be modified “only for good cause.” “Unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad faith of the party seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party, Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). A party’s failure to act diligently is determinative. Id.

Plaintiffs failed to show good cause to…