GE CAPITAL COMMERCIAL, INC. v. WRIGHT WRIGHT, INC.

Full title: GE CAPITAL COMMERCIAL, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. WRIGHT WRIGHT, INC.…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Jan 4, 2011

Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-572-L (N.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-572-L.

January 4, 2011

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SAM LINDSAY, District Judge

Before the court is Worthington's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer, filed December 20, 2010. For the reasons herein stated, the court denies Worthington's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer.

I. Background

II. Analysis

Id.15 15S W Enters., L.L.C. v. Southwest Bank of Alabama315 F.3d 533 53616S W Enters.315 F.3d at 535 Id. Id.

Worthington relies solely on Rule 15(a), which is the incorrect rule. At this juncture, Rule 16(b) applies; however, Worthington has not discussed the "good cause" standard under Rule 16. The court, therefore, is unable to determine whether it should amend the current scheduling order to allow Worthington to amend its answer. Accordingly, the motion will be denied.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons herein stated, Worthington failed to show that good cause exists for the court to amend the current scheduling order and allow it to file an amended answer. Accordingly, the court denies without prejudice Worthington's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer.

It is so ordered this 4th day of January, 2011.