Beauchamp et al v. Wallace et al, No. 2:2011cv01029 - Document 71 (M.D. Ala. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER directing that, based on the representations made on the record on October 12, 2012, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The motions for hearing (doc. nos. 65 and 66 ) are denied, as further set out; (2) The motion to vacate, etc. (doc . no. 66 ) is denied, as further set out; (3) The pending motions to dismiss (doc. nos. 59 and 60 ) apply to the fourth amended complaint (doc. no. 62 ); Counsel for plaintiffs has informed the court that there is no substantive difference betwe en the third and fourth amended complaints (doc. nos. 52 and 62 ); (4) Because the uniform scheduling order (doc. no. 23 )'s deadline for filing amendments to pleadings (May 15, 2012) has long passed, plaintiffs' counsel is DIRECTED NOT to file another amended complaint without first meeting ALL of the following three requirements: (i) Plaintiffs' counsel must first seek and obtain leave of the court; (ii) Plaintiffs' counsel must comply with Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as further set out; and (iii) Plaintiffs' counsel would finally have to meet the requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/15/12. (scn, )
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION D LIVRO BEAUCHAMP; and OBELISK HEALTHCARE, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. MIKE WALLACE; et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv1029-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER Based on representations made on the record on October 12, 2012, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The motions for hearing (doc. nos. 65 and 66) are denied. A hearing was held on October 12, 2012. (2) The motion to vacate, etc. (doc. no. 66) is denied. The dispositive-motion deadline is not imminent. (3) The pending motions to dismiss (doc. nos. 59 and 60) apply to the fourth amended complaint (doc. no. 62). Counsel for plaintiffs has informed the court that there is no substantive difference between the third and fourth amended complaints (doc. nos. 52 and 62). (4) Because the uniform scheduling order (doc. no. 23) s deadline for filing amendments to pleadings (May 15, 2012) has long passed, plaintiffs counsel is DIRECTED NOT to file another amended complaint without first meeting ALL of the following three requirements: (i) Plaintiffs counsel must first seek and obtain leave of the court. (ii) Plaintiffs counsel must comply with Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Both Rules 16 and 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern a court s decision whether to allow an untimely amendment to a complaint. Sosa v. Airprint Sys., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (11th Cir. 1988). scheduling order Rule16 requires a court to enter a that limits the time to join other parties and to amend the pleadings, and, under this rule, the modification of such a scheduling order may be granted only upon a showing of good cause. Id. at 1418. Therefore, when a motion to amend is filed after a scheduling order deadline, Rule 16 is the proper guide for 2 determining whether a party s delay may be excused. at1418 no. 2. might come Id. Here, because any motion to amend that from the plaintiffs would come after the scheduling-order deadline (May 15, 2012), plaintiffs would first have to demonstrate good cause under Rule 16 before the court would consider whether the amendment is proper under Rule 15. See id. at 1419. To show good cause, plaintiffs would have to show that the schedulingorder deadline could not be met despite diligence. id. at 1418. See In other words, plaintiffs counsel would have to show diligence before the court would consider another amended complaint from plaintiffs. See id. at 1419. (iii) Plaintiffs counsel would finally have to meet the requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. DONE, this the 15th day of October, 2012. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE