Barajas Centeno v. City of Carlsbad
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CENTENO, Case No.: 3:19-cv-2098-L-DEB
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al. [ECF 139] Defendants. 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended 17 complaint. Defendants opposed, and Plaintiff replied. The Court decides the matter 18 without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7.1. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES 19 the motion. 20 The Court set March 30, 2020, as the deadline to file motions to amend. (ECF 33). 21 Plaintiff filed the current motion on June 18, 2021, almost 15 months after the deadline. 22 (ECF 139). He must therefore show “good cause” to amend the scheduling order. See 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16; Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). 24 “Good cause” exists if a party can demonstrate the schedule could not have been 25 met despite their diligence. Johnson, 975 F.2d at…