ITM's issues with its counsel does not satisfy Rule 16(b)'s good cause standard. See, e.g., Scott v. New York City Dep't of Corr., 445 F. App'x 389, 391 (2d Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of motion to amend scheduling order because "apparent negligence of [plaintiff's] former attorney was not sufficient to establish 'good cause' for amending" under Rule 16(b)); Field Day, LLC v. County of Suffolk, No. 04 CV 2202 (DRH) (ETB), 2013 WL 55697, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2013) ("[T]he fact that new counsel seeks to plead claims that prior counsel passed on does not establish good cause")). The Court does not limit its diligence assessment to ITM's current counsel.

However, "'[T]he fact that new counsel seeks to plead claims that prior counsel passed on does not establish good cause.'" Rogers v. Medicredit, Inc., 2013 WL 4496278, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 21, 2013) (quoting Field Day, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 2013 WL 55697, *3 (E.D. N.Y. Jan. 3, 2013); see also, Harshaw v. Bethany Christian Servs., 2010 WL 8032038, at *8 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 5, 2010) ("This court adheres to the widely followed principle that '[t]he arrival of new counsel . . . does not entitle parties to . . . set aside valid and binding orders of the court, regardless of the efficacy of any new strategy counsel seeks to follow.'"). Other than obtaining additional counsel, ACI offers no evidence or explanation why these allegations could not have been raised before the Court's deadline passed.

Since the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not established good cause for failing to comply with the deadline to amend the pleadings, the Court generally need not address whether Plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend under Rule 15(a) or Defendant's argument that Plaintiff's Lanham Act claims would be futile. See, e.g., Chrebet, 2014 WL 1836835, at *21 (citing Field Day, LLC v. Cnty. of Suffolk, No. 04-CV-2202, 2013 WL 55697, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan 3, 2013) (holding that party "must first satisfy the 'good cause' standard under Rule 16 before an analysis under Rule 15 is conducted"); Point 4 Data Corp. v. Tri-State Surgical Supply & Equip., Ltd., No. 11-CV-726, 2012 WL 2458060, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. June 27, 2012), aff'd, 2012 WL 3306612 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2012) ("If the party seeking the amendment satisfies the 'good cause' standard of Rule 16, the court then determines whether the movant also meets the liberal standards of Rule 15."). However, in an exercise of its discretion, the Court will address Defendant's argument that Plaintiff's false designation of origin and false advertising claims are futile in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003).

Since the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not established good cause for failing to comply with the deadline to amend the pleadings, the Court need not address whether Horn is entitled to leave to amend under Rule 15(a) or Plaintiff's argument that Horn's standing defense would be futile. Chrebet, No. 09 CV 4249, 2014 WL 1836835, at *21 (citing Field Day, LLC v. Cnty. of Suffolk, No. 04 Civ. 2202, 2013 WL 55697, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan 3.2013) (holding that party "must first satisfy the 'good cause' standard under Rule 16 before an analysis under Rule 15 is conducted"); Point 4 Data Corp. v. Tri-State Surgical Supply & Equip., Ltd., No. 11-CV-726 CBA, 2012 WL 2458060, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. June 27, 2012), aff'd, No. 11 CV 726, 2012 WL 3306612 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2012) ("If the party seeking the amendment satisfies the 'good cause' standard of Rule 16, the court then determines whether the movant also meets the liberal standards of Rule 15."); Hernandez v. Immortal Rise, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 4360, 2013 WL 1703529, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2013); Rococo Assocs., Inc. v. Award Packaging Corp., No. 06 Civ. 0975, 2007 WL 2026819, at *2-3 (E.D.N.Y. July 9, 2007) (adopting Report and Recommendation)). V. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's second reason--i.e, the retention of new legal counsel "who clearly believes that a class action is the proper avenue to pursue in the circumstances of this case and that it is necessary to add three previously unnamed parties,"--is also not sufficient to establish good cause for amendment. "[T]he fact that new counsel seeks to plead claims that prior counsel passed on does not establish good cause." Field Day, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 2013 WL 55697, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2013) (citing Scott v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Corr., 445 F. App'x 389, 391 (2d Cir. 2011)); Harshaw v. Bethany Christian Services, 2010 WL 8032038, *8-9 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 5, 2010) (Retaining new counsel with new litigation strategies is not good cause to reopen discovery or extend deadlines); Alexander v. Westbury Union Free School Dist., 829 F.Supp. 2d 89, 118 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2011) ("To find good cause simply on the basis of new counsel would be to allow a party to manufacture good cause at any time simply by switching counsel.") (citations omitted). Filing a case as a class action is a tactical decision, which plaintiff's original counsel chose not to pursue.