TANSY DEVELPMENT COMPANY INC v. CASTLE VEGTECH INC (2026)

United States District Court, N.D. California.

TANSY DEVELPMENT COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. CASTLE VEGTECH, INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 5:22-cv-02936-PCP

Decided: July 23, 2026

Jan Adam Greben, Price, Postel, & Parma LLP, Santa Barbara, CA, Craig Steven Berman, Hamrick & Evans LLP, Burbank, CA, for Plaintiff Tansy Develpment Company, Inc. Gabriel Joseph Padilla, Edgcomb Law Group, LLP, Irvine, CA, Ladd Cahoon, Edgcomb Law Group, LLP, Mill Valley, CA, Tiffany Roxanne Hedgpeth, Edgcomb Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants Jamina Investments, Jamie Castle. Michael Castle, Capitola, CA, Pro Se. Gabriel Joseph Padilla, Edgcomb Law Group, LLP, Irvine, CA, Ladd Cahoon, Edgcomb Law Group, LLP, Mill Valley, CA, Tiffany Roxanne Hedgpeth, Edgcomb Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant Michael Castle. Ladd Cahoon, Edgcomb Law Group, LLP, Mill Valley, CA, for Defendant Special Admin Raymond Mayer. Alan Hui, Palm Bay, FL, Pro Se.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND

This case arises from a disputed indemnity agreement from a property sale that occurred twenty-five years ago. The instant action was filed more than four years ago. Pro se defendant Alan Hui now seeks to amend his answer to the original complaint to add both counterclaims and crossclaims. The last day to request leave to amend the pleadings per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) was March 28, 2023. Hui's motions are denied.

After a scheduling order has been issued by the court, a party may modify it only with “good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Unlike Rule 15(a), whose liberal amendment policy is focused on the bad faith of the party seeking to amend, Rule 16(b) is primarily concerned with that party's diligence in seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). “If [the amending] party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Id.

Hui seeks to amend his complaint based on newly discovered evidence. But almost all of the evidence cited by Hui was previously available to him with the exception of one statement from recent discovery proceedings. The statement at issue concerns a co-defendant's testimony that he “intends to produce evidence at a trial that [the defendant's family and related entities] willfully and fraudulently conspired to withhold” potentially relevant communications. A party's statement that they intend to produce evidence sometime in the future is not good cause to support amending a complaint. If Hui wants to learn more, he may proceed through the available and proper discovery channels. As for the evidence that was previously available to Hui, the failure to either properly prosecute a case or “pay attention to [discovery] responses” received earlier is “precisely the kind of case management that Rule 16 is designed to eliminate.” Id. at 610.

Hui failed to demonstrate good cause to modify the case management order. The motions are therefore denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

P. Casey Pitts United States District Judge

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network