Opinion
Civil No. 3: 04-CV-1061-H.
March 9, 2005
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint, filed February 4, 2005; Defendants' Response, filed February 23, 2005; and Plaintiff's Reply, filed February 28, 2005. For the following reasons, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiff's Motion should be DENIED.
Although the Court Order entered February 7, 2005, directed that "[n]o Replies may be filed unless directed by the Court," Plaintiff nevertheless filed a Reply. Plaintiff is admonished to comply with the Court's instructions regarding future filings.
Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint after the deadline of September 7, 2004 deadline, set in the Court's Scheduling Order, entered June 21, 2004. A motion to amend pleadings filed outside of the time limits set in the Court's Scheduling Order is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), rather than the more lenient standards of Rule 15(a). SW Enter., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535-36 (5th Cir. 2003). The standard of review under Rule 16(b) is "good cause." Id. at 536. "Good cause" is determined by considering "(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.
Plaintiff does not address the good cause standard of Rule 16(b) in his Motion. Even in his Reply, Plaintiff fails to provide a legitimate reason for his failure to timely move for leave to amend. Plaintiff says that plan documents were not disclosed by Defendants until December 23, 2004. ( See Pl.'s Reply at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants' own delay in producing the documents triggering notice of the cause of action is the reason for the amended petition not being filed sooner." ( Id. at 3.) However, Plaintiff's Motion does not mention the December 23, 2004, disclosures ( see Pl.'s Mot. at 1-5), and more importantly, Plaintiff's expert report, upon which Plaintiff relies for alleging additional causes of action, does not rely on the December 23, 2004, disclosures for determining the existence of those causes of action. ( See Pl.'s App. at 11-18.)
Plaintiff cites to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) for the proposition that Plaintiff's Motion should be granted outside the time limits set by the Court. (Pl.'s Mot. at 4.) Rule 6(b) allows enlargement of the time for filing upon cause shown that the failure to timely file was a result of excusable neglect. FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b). No excusable neglect has been shown, so the Court need not address the applicability of Rule 6(b) to the instant Motion. The Court declines to permit an amendment five months after the deadline for amendment has passed and one month prior to the deadline for filing dispositive motions, which are due April 15, 2005. ( See Order, entered September 23, 2004.)
Plaintiff's proposed Fourth Amended Complaint asserts two new causes of action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001: (1) that Defendant did not timely disclose information requested, and (2) that Defendant did not have a proper ERISA plan. ( See Pl.'s App. at 3, 6.) Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how either of these claims were not known to Plaintiff until the December 23, 2004, disclosure. Indeed, Plaintiff asserts that he "unambiguously asks for this information [on January 27, 2004] which was not provided until December 23, 2004." (Pl.'s Reply at 2.) Plaintiff requested such information well before the deadline for filing amendments, Plaintiff was aware of Defendant's failure to timely provide the documents prior to the deadline for amendment. Plaintiff's failure to timely amend his complaint therefore amounts to unexcusable neglect.
Plaintiff's Reply is contradictory in that it also indicates that "Plaintiff first issued a Request for Production to Defendants seeking the documents produced on December 23, 2004 on or about October 29, 2004." (Pl.'s Reply at 1.) Assuming this to be true, Plaintiff has acted with unexcusable neglect in not requesting such documents until after the deadline for amendments has passed.
Plaintiff's second new ERISA claim is that Defendant did not have a proper ERISA plan. The availability of this claim was certainly known to Plaintiff at the time of filing of the case. ( See Def.'s Resp. at 3-4 n. 5) Plaintiff fails to provide any cause, let alone good cause, for his failure to timely amend his complaint as to this claim.
The Court finds that given the late date of the amendment, Defendants would be prejudiced by adding the claims. Defendants would be required to conduct additional discovery; the deadlines for designating experts, which has already passed, and for filing dispositive motions, would need to be extended. The trial setting would likely need to be vacated. "The federal courts are vested with the inherent power to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1417 (5th Cir. 1995). The Court is unwilling to continue the case for an amendment five months after the deadline for amendment has passed when the Plaintiff could have made those amendments months prior to the deadline. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.