Opinion
CIVIL 20-1502 PJM
05-30-2023
Rock Spring Plaza II, LLC v. Investors Warranty of Am., LLC
MEMORANDUM
PETER J. MESSITTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court has received Defendant Investors Warranty of America, LLC's Motion for Leave to Amend Counterclaim (ECF No. 300), Plaintiff Rock Spring Plaza II, LLC's opposition thereto (ECF No. 311), and IWA's Reply (ECF No. 313). IWA seeks to add one count for breach of contract, alleging that Plaintiff violated the 2006 Estoppel Agreement between them when it filed this lawsuit
IWA's Motion for Leave to Amend Counterclaim (ECF No. 300) is DENIED as untimely.
“[A]fter the deadlines provided by a scheduling order have passed, the good cause standard [of Rule 16] must be satisfied to justify leave to amend.” Wooton v. CL, LLC, 504 Fed.Appx. 220, 223 (4th Cir. 2013). “Good cause” requires a showing that the party seeking to amend diligently attempted to comply with the deadline set forth in the scheduling order. Amaya v. DGS Constr., LLC, 326 F.R.D. 439,451 (D. Md. 2018).
The deadline for amendments set forth in this matter's scheduling order was January 15, 2021. ECF No. 31. Asa party to the 2006 Estoppel Agreement, IWA would have had all the information it needed to timely bring a breach of contract claim, but it did not seek leave to amend until more two and a half years after the deadline had passed and with only one month before discovery is set to end. In light of these facts, IWA has not shown diligence or “good cause” to justify the Court granting leave to amend.
Despite the informal nature of this ruling, it shall constitute an Order of the Court and the Clerk is directed to docket it accordingly.