Opinion
Case No. 04-20257-CIV-UNGARO-BENAGES.
September 15, 2004
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint, filed September 10, 2004.
THE COURT has considered the motion and the pertinent portions of the record, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. On June 2, 2004, the Court entered a Scheduling Order for Pretrial Conference and Trial which set a July 23, 2004 deadline for the addition of parties or amendment of pleadings in this cause. Plaintiff's pending motion for leave was filed seven weeks after the expiration of this deadline and fails completely to explain Plaintiff's untimeliness in filing this motion. Plaintiff's motion seeks leave to amend Plaintiff's complaint in light of a resolution passed by the Commission of Defendant City of Aventura on July 6, 2004. This resolution was passed more than two weeks prior to the amendment deadline set by the Court's pretrial scheduling order, and Plaintiff could have, but did not, timely moved to amend its complaint to account for this action by the city commission. Plaintiff's unexplained failure to comply with the Court's amendment deadline where the event giving rise to her amended complaint occurred prior to the expiration of this deadline warrants the denial of leave to amend under these circumstances. See Sosa v. Airprint Systems, Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998) ("District courts are required to `enter a scheduling order that limits the time to . . . join other parties and to amend the pleadings. . . .' Such orders `control the subsequent course of the action unless modified by a subsequent order,' and may be modified only `upon a showing of good cause.' This good cause standard precludes modification unless the schedule cannot `be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.'" (quoting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16)); Williams v. Baldwin County Commission, 203 F.R.D. 512, 516 (S.D. Ala. 2001) ("[W]hile leave to amend may be freely given, parties are bound to comply with the requirements set forth by a court's Rule 16(b) scheduling deadlines. Indeed, where a party seeks leave to amend after a scheduling order deadline has passed, as is the case here, that party must first demonstrate good cause for the tardy amendment under Rule 16(b) before a court can consider whether the proposed amendments are proper under Rule 15." (footnote omitted)); cf. Carruthers v. BSA Advertising, Inc., 357 F.3d 1213, 1218 (11th Cir. 2004) ("Because [the plaintiff] filed her motion for leave to amend her first amended complaint after the discovery deadline and after the close of pleadings, without adequately justifying the delay, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying it."). Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is DENIED.
If Plaintiff, as it appears from footnote three in Plaintiff's motion, wishes to bring to the Court's attention recent state or federal court decisions which pertain to Plaintiff's complaint, the proper method for doing so is a notice of supplemental authority. Despite Plaintiff's "endorsement" of the decisions cited in footnote three, the Court is unclear what purpose this citation serves at the moment, as no motions are now pending.
DONE AND ORDERED.