Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:02-CV-2319-D
February 3, 2004
ORDER
Plaintiffs' December 22, 2003 motion for leave to file first amended complaint is denied. Plaintiffs have briefed their motion under the standards that relate to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). See Ps. Mot. at 1. The court-ordered deadline for filing motions for leave to amend was November 3, 2003. When, as here, the deadline to amend pleadings has expired, a court considering a motion to amend must first determine whether to modify the scheduling order under the standards of Rule 16(b). See SW Enters., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., N.A., 315 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003); Am. Tourmaline Fields v. Int'l Paper Co., 1998 WL 874825, at * 1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 1998) (Fitzwater, J). If the movants meet the requirements of Rule 16(b), the court must then determine whether to grant leave to amend under the more liberal standards of Rule 15(a). SW Enters., 315 F.3d at 536; Am. Tourmaline Fields, 1998 WL 874825, at *1. Rule 16(b) requires that a party who seeks to modify a scheduling order must show good cause. Rule 16(b); Reliance Ins. Co. v. La. Land Exploration Co., 110 F.3d 253, 257 (5th Cir. 1997). In SW Enterprises the Fifth Circuit applied the four-part test of Reliance Insurance to decide whether an untimely motion for leave to amend should be granted. Accordingly, this court must consider `"(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.'" SW Enters., 315 F.3d at 536 (quoting Reliance Ins., 110 F.3d at 257 (quoting Geiserman v. MacDonald, 893 F.2d 787, 791 (5th Cir. 1990))). Plaintiffs have not addressed all of these elements. Accordingly, their motion is denied.