Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiffs Jeremy Totten and Steven Zook were seriously injured on September 17, 2024, when a Skyjack-manufactured scissor lift rented by their employer from United Rentals malfunctioned, tipped over, and threw them approximately 30 feet to the ground. Totten filed suit in Siskiyou County Superior Court on November 13, 2024; United Rentals removed the action to federal court on January 10, 2025. Zook filed a separate federal action on March 11, 2025. The court related the cases and consolidated them for discovery. Totten filed a First Amended Complaint on March 17, 2025, asserting negligence and products liability claims. On June 3, 2026, the court amended pretrial deadlines, setting fact discovery to close on October 28, 2026, but did not modify the motion-to-amend deadline. Plaintiffs subsequently moved for leave to file second amended complaints to add United Rentals to the products liability cause of action based on discovery revealing hydraulic fluid leakage near the outrigger that collapsed, which Plaintiffs argue indicates a manufacturing defect.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend. Applying the Rule 16(b) good-cause standard, the court found Plaintiffs were reasonably diligent: the key evidence—Jeff Ogden's accident report noting reddish fluid at the lift base—was not known to Plaintiffs' counsel until mid-February 2026, and Plaintiffs promptly corresponded with Defendant about the proposed amendment thereafter. The court rejected Defendant's argument that earlier interview notes referencing "Failure w/outrigger / or hydraulic" put Plaintiffs on notice, finding those notes ambiguous. On prejudice, the court held Defendant failed to meet its burden: the cases remain in the discovery period, no trial date has been set, Plaintiffs represent no new discovery is needed because the negligence and products liability claims overlap, and Defendant articulated no specific prejudice. The court also found no bad faith, undue delay, futility, or other Rule 15(a) grounds for denial. Plaintiffs were ordered to file amended complaints within seven days; Defendants' responsive pleadings are due 21 days thereafter.
Key Takeaways
- Good cause under Rule 16(b) turns primarily on the moving party's diligence; learning critical facts for the first time in discovery can satisfy the standard even after a scheduling deadline has passed.
- Ambiguous prior references to a potential defect (e.g., interview notes stating "Failure w/outrigger / or hydraulic") do not necessarily defeat good cause when the specific factual basis for the amendment emerges later.
- Prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight under Rule 15(a), but the burden rests on the opponent to articulate concrete prejudice—not merely assert it—especially when discovery is ongoing and no trial date is set.
- Overlap in discovery between existing and proposed claims (here, negligence and products liability) strongly undermines a prejudice argument.
- The court warned that future failure to meet and confer in good faith could result in striking a motion entirely, even though it found Plaintiffs' meet-and-confer efforts here sufficient, albeit "threadbare."
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the Eastern District of California's application of the Ninth Circuit's two-step framework for post-deadline amendment motions: first assessing good cause under Rule 16(b) with a focus on diligence, then evaluating prejudice and other Rule 15(a) factors. The decision reinforces that a party's prompt action after learning new facts in discovery can establish good cause, and that conclusory prejudice assertions—without identification of specific additional discovery, cost, or delay—are insufficient to block amendment when the case is still in its early stages. The ruling also highlights the practical importance of the meet-and-confer requirement, with the court admonishing both sides despite reaching the merits.