Case 4:19-cv-04577-JSW Document 268 Filed 05/01/24 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FUMIKO LOPEZ, et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Case No. 19-cv-04577-JSW
`
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED
`COMPLAINT AND GRANTING
`REQUESTS TO SEAL
`
`Defendant.
`
`Re: Dkt. Nos. 251, 258, 262
`
`
`
`Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to modify the scheduling order and for leave to
`
`file a third amended class action complaint. Having considered the parties’ papers and authority,
`
`the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion.
`
`
`
`On November 2, 2021, this Court entered a scheduling order setting forth the deadline of
`
`January 24, 2022, for Plaintiffs to amend their pleadings in the case. On April 3, 2024, Plaintiffs
`
`moved for an adjustment to the scheduling order and for leave to file a third amended complaint.
`
`By this proposed amendment, Plaintiffs seek to add an additional plaintiff who owns a HomePod,
`
`which is one of the devices they contend is at issue in this case. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 16, to determine whether there is “good cause” to grant an extension of the deadline to
`
`file an amended complaint by nearly two years, the Court must consider “whether: (1) the movant
`
`was diligent in assisting the court in creating a working Rule 16 order; (2) the movant’s
`
`noncompliance with a Rule 16 deadline occurred notwithstanding his diligent efforts and due to
`
`matters which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated at the time of the Rule 16
`
`scheduling conference; and (3) the movant was diligent in seeking amendment of the Rule 16
`
`order, once it became apparent that he could not comply with the order.” Johnson v. Mammoth
`
`Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609-10 (9th Cir. 1992).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04577-JSW Document 268 Filed 05/01/24 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs claim they were diligent and moved to amend “as a direct result of facts Plaintiffs
`
`have learned in discovery, which were not known – or knowable – to Plaintiffs prior to the
`
`expiration of their deadline to amend their pleadings.” (Motion at 6.) This is patently false. As
`
`early as February 10, 2021, this Court explicitly found that none of the named plaintiffs owned a
`
`HomePod. (Dkt. No. 65, Order dated February 10, 2021, at 5 & n.2.) In addition, Plaintiffs are in
`
`a position to know precisely the type of devices they own. There is no support for the notion that
`
`Plaintiffs only had notice of this issue upon discovery by Defendant Apple. Accordingly, the
`
`Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate they were diligent in
`
`seeking an amendment of their complaint.
`
`In addition, although it is unnecessary to review the motion under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 15(a), the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to meet this burden as well. There is
`
`undue delay in the request to amend, there is some prejudice to Apple in requiring the company to
`
`pursue additional discovery regarding the purported new plaintiff, and, after three prior
`
`amendments to the complaint, the Court finds there was a repeated failure to cure alleged
`
`deficiencies in the complaint by prior amendment. See California Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Shiloh
`
`Group, LLC, 268 F. Supp. 3d 1029, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2017). Accordingly, the request for leave to
`
`amend is improper Under Rule 15 as well.
`
`
`
`Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to modify the scheduling order and for
`
`leave to file a third amended class action complaint is DENIED. In addition, the requests to file
`
`under seal are GRANTED. (Dkt. Nos. 258, 262.)
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: May 1, 2024
`
`______________________________________
`
`JEFFREY S. WHITE
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`