ORDER

JORGE SOLIS, District Judge

Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint filed April 4, 2003. In this motion, Plaintiff seeks to change the name of Defendant Coldata and add federal causes of action for obtaining credit reports under false pretenses against ORIX as well as Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations against Coldata. Defendant ORIX filed a response April 22, 2003 while Defendant Coldata failed to respond. Plaintiff filed a reply May, 7, 2003. After considering the parties' briefing and applicable law, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Richard Hinds ("Hinds" or "Plaintiff") filed his Original Petition against Defendant ORIX Capital Markets, L.L.C. ("ORIX" or "Defendant") on January 4, 2002, in the 193rd Judicial District, Dallas County, Texas. Notice of Removal, Tab 2 (Pl.'s Orig. Pet.). In the Original Petition, Plaintiff alleged claims for promissory estoppel, breach of contract, and fraud arising from ORIX's offer and later withdrawal of an offer of employment, which Plaintiff asserts induced him to quit his then existing job.

ORIX, a major lender and investor on sophisticated real estate transactions, had offered Hinds the position of in-house counsel to investigate potential fraud and other creditor problems. Hinds claims that in connection with his initial application to ORIX, he declined to authorize ORIX to conduct a background credit check of him. He claims that later an employee in ORIX's Human Resources Department, after the Defendant had extended an offer letter, requested that Plaintiff sign a credit background search authorization on the promise that it would not be used, but would merely be placed "in the file" for record purposes. Plaintiff claims he had deliberately and intentionally not authorized such a credit background check because he had some credit difficulties in the past.

Nonetheless, Defendant conducted the credit check. After the Defendant conducted the credit check, Defendant complained to Plaintiff regarding several incidents appearing on the resulting credit report. In a meeting between the parties on November 8, 2001, Hinds explained to ORIX that his credit problems were not his fault, but were due to charges made by his wife, which had now been resolved. ORIX claims that the documentation provided by Plaintiff to support his contention consisted of letters from friends, relatives, and others attesting to his good character, but did not explain Plaintiff's responsibility for the credit problems or provide supporting documentation that the problems had been resolved. ORIX further claims that when it asked for further documentation from the creditors, Hinds explained that he could not provide creditor confirmation because he had attempted a legal maneuver to resolve a debt by making a partial payment (i.e., had his father make the payment to one of the creditors with an attached letter stating that the payment and cashing of the check would constitute full satisfaction of the debt).

Meanwhile, Plaintiff alleges that he was assured he would continue to have a job with Defendant so long as he promised to make a good faith attempt to clear up the derogatory items on the credit report. Plaintiff also reluctantly authorized ORIX to conduct a further credit examination in the future to confirm his attempts. Nevertheless, ORIX ultimately rescinded its offer of employment to Hinds following an e-mail sent by Hinds to Ed Smith, the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer at ORIX, stating that he had relied on ORIX's job offer to his "extreme detriment" and implying that he would sue ORIX if it revoked his employment offer. Defendant claims that this litigation threat, Plaintiff's conduct in striking out the authorization for the credit background check, and the obtaining of an "accord and satisfaction" through a ruse, led to the decision to rescind the job offer.

Before the case was removed, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Petition on February 2, 2002 adding claims against Coldata, Inc. ("Coldata") for breach of contract, violation of the Debt Collection Act ("DCA"), violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA"), and defamation. Supplement to Notice of Removal, Tab A (Pl.'s First Am. Pet.). Hinds alleges that Coldata was either assigned an interest or was retained to collect a debt arising from a credit card issued to him by MBNA Bank. Plaintiff states that his father had sent Coldata a check in the amount of $2,975 dated June 14, 2001, with a notation that it must either accept the proposed settlement or return the check uncashed. Notwithstanding this "accord and satisfaction" agreement, Plaintiff asserts Coldata cashed the check and then later reported to Equifax and/or CSC Credit Services in October 2001 that Plaintiff still owed $23,958 in a collection account. It is Hinds' further contention that the adverse action taken by ORIX was caused by the derogatory information placed on his credit report by Coldata.

This Court's July 3, 2002 scheduling order set a deadline for amending pleadings of November 1, 2002, which was then extended by agreed motion until December 1, 2002. Trial is set for October 20, 2003. After the extended deadline for amending pleadings had expired, Hinds conducted depositions of ORIX employees in January 2003 and the corporate representative of Coldata in February 2003. During the latter deposition, Plaintiff learned that Coldata had changed its name to Allied Interstate, Inc. ("Allied Interstate"). Plaintiff further claims that additional information relating to existing causes of action were discovered during the depositions.

Plaintiff now files this Motion for Leave to Amend, more than 4 months after the extended deadline for amendment of pleadings. Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to file this Second Amended Complaint in order to change the name of Coldata to Allied Interstate and to add federal causes of action that mirror the already existing state causes of action against both ORIX and Coldata. Plaintiff alleges a Fair Credit Reporting Act fraud claim against ORIX and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations against Coldata.

DISCUSSION

When a scheduling order deadline has been issued by the district court and has expired, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) governs the amendment of pleadings. SW Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Southtrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533,536 (5th Cir. 2003). The more liberal standard of Rule 15(a) will only apply to the district court's decision in granting or denying leave to amend if the moving party demonstrates good cause to modify the scheduling order deadline. Id. A scheduling order "shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the district judge." Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). The good cause standard within Rule 16(b) requires the "party seeking relief to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party needing the extension." SW Enterprises, 315 F.3d at 535 citing 6A Charles Alan Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 (2d ed. 1990).

The Fifth Circuit recently adopted a four-part test to determine whether the district court abused its discretion when refusing to modify a scheduling order. Id. at 536. The test weighs the importance of each of these factors: (1) the explanation for the failure to timely move for leave to amend; (2) the importance of the amendment; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the amendment; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice. Id. If the moving party can establish that a scheduling order should be modified, the court then must decide under Rule 15(a) whether to grant leave to amend.

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend a pleading "shall be granted when justice so requires." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The decision to grant leave to amend lies within the discretion of the trial court. Unless there exists a substantial reason for denying leave to amend, the district court should permit the filing of a proposed amendment. Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 594, 598 (5th Cir. 2000). In determining whether to grant leave to amend, the court may consider several factors, including undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182.

In moving for leave to amend, Plaintiff does not mention Rule 16(b) but rather bases his claim on the more liberal standard of Rule 15(a). Plaintiff alleges that the motion should be granted since "no new parties are added, and the underlying facts supporting the added federal causes of action will not require any additional discovery or otherwise delay the proceeding, since they closely mirror state claims already on file with the First Amended Petition." Pl.'s Mot. Leave Am., p. 3. However, the Fifth Circuit has held that Rule 16(b) governs the amendment of pleadings when a scheduling deadline has expired.

I. Name Change (Coldata to Allied Interstate)

Plaintiff demonstrated good cause under Rule 16(b) for modifying the scheduling order to allow for the proposed name change of Defendant Coldata to Allied Interstate. Plaintiff did not learn that Coldata was acquired by Allied Interstate until depositions that occurred after the extended deadline for amendment of pleadings. Thus, the Plaintiff could not have reasonably met the deadline of December 1, 2002, and the district court should be able to view this proposed name change under Rule 15(a).

Under Dussouy, the District Court should allow leave to amend unless a substantial reason for denying the motion exists. Defendant Coldata failed to respond to this Motion for Leave to Amend and thus has not offered any reason of delay, prejudice, bad faith or dilatory motives by the Plaintiff, or any other reason for not allowing the amendment. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend with respect to the name change of Coldata to Allied Interstate.

II. Federal Causes of Action Against ORIX and Coldata

In determining whether Plaintiff established good cause to modify the scheduling order deadline in order to add federal causes of action against both ORIX and Coldata, the Court must decide if the Plaintiff was diligent in seeking to modify the scheduling order deadline. Under the four-part test established by the Fifth Circuit in SW Enterprises, two of the factors weigh against the Plaintiff in establishing good cause.

Plaintiff did not explain its failure to timely move for leave to amend with respect to adding federal causes of action against both ORIX and Coldata. Plaintiff had knowledge of similar state law causes of action well before the extended deadline for amendment of pleadings and was aware that the case had been removed to Federal Court since February 5, 2002. Furthermore, Plaintiff had knowledge of the facts which gave rise to both federal statutory causes of action at the time of his First Amended Petition on February 2, 2002. In his Motion for Leave to Amend, Plaintiff alleges that he "learned additional information" from depositions with ORIX and Coldata "related to existing causes of action, and wishes to add such specific information to his Complaint as well as federal causes of action for obtaining credit reports under false pretenses against ORIX and unfair debt collection violations against Coldata." Pl's Mot. Leave Am., p. 2. Plaintiff however did not provide any evidence that would demonstrate that the federal causes of action could not have been filed before the December 1, 2002 deadline. Thus in filing his Second Amended Complaint four months after the deadline, Plaintiff does not meet the good cause standard of Rule 16(b).

The second factor of the four-part test deals with the importance of the amendment. Plaintiff does not demonstrate the importance of adding federal causes of action against both Defendants. Since the federal claims closely mirror state law claims already on file, the Plaintiff will not be severely harmed if the Court denies the motion.

The addition of the federal causes of action however would not create any undue prejudice against ORIX or Coldata. Defendant Coldata did not respond to the motion and thus did not offer any reasons for being prejudiced by the granting of the motion. Defendant ORIX did respond but failed to specifically state the additional research and discovery that would be needed with respect to Plaintiff's statutory claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In addition, ORIX would not be unduly prejudiced by the amendment because the proposed federal claims are factually similar to the state law claims. Although Plaintiff can allege that the addition of the federal causes of action will not prejudice either ORIX or Coldata, it has been determined that "mere inadvertence on the part of the movant and the absence of prejudice to the non-movant are insufficient to establish `good cause.'" Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Foster, No. 3-00-CV-1080-BD, 2002 WL 31433295, at *1 (N.D.Tex. Oct. 28, 2002), citing Am. Tourmaline Fields v. Int'l Paper Co., No. Civ.A. 3:96-CV-3363-D, 1998 WL 874825, at *1 (N.D.Tex. Dec. 7, 1998). Therefore, Plaintiff cannot modify the scheduling order deadline whenever lack of prejudice to the moving party has been established.

The requirement of good cause by Rule 16(b) limits the Court from viewing the additional federal claims under the more liberal standard of Rule 15(a). Plaintiff failed to establish good cause in modifying the scheduling order deadline for the addition of federal claims because of unnecessary delay. Therefore, the Court acts within its discretion when DENYING the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend in order to add federal causes of action against both ORIX and Coldata.

CONCLUSION

Since the scheduling order deadline had expired prior to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend, Rule 16(b) governs the amendment of pleadings and Rule 15(a) is dependant upon the moving party's ability to demonstrate good cause. Plaintiff established good cause for changing the name of Coldata to Allied Interstate but failed to establish good cause for adding federal causes of action against both ORIX and Coldata. Therefore, the Court was only able to apply Rule 15(a) when reviewing the name change of Coldata.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend in order to change the name of Coldata to Allied Interstate. The caption of the case will hereby be changed to reflect the name change of Defendant Coldata. Furthermore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend in order to add federal causes of action against both ORIX and Coldata.

IT IS SO ORDERED.