United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division
ORDER
KRISTI
K. DuBOSE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
action is before the Court on the Motion for Leave to File an
Amended Answer and Counterclaim filed by Defendant
Southeastern Cheese Corporation (doc.70). Plaintiff Rockhill
Insurance Company was given an opportunity to respond but did
not (doc. 73). Upon consideration, and for the reasons set
forth herein, the Motion is GRANTED.
Defendant shall file its amended answer on or before
July 8, 2019.
Southeastern
Cheese Corporation (SCC) moves the Court for leave to amend
its answer to include the defenses of mistake and unclean
hands and to assert a counterclaim for reformation of the
Policy's Scheduled Location Endorsement. SCC argues that
good cause exists to allow the amendment after the deadline
for amendments to pleadings in the Rule 16(b) Scheduling
Order because, despite reasonable diligence, it did not
become aware of the grounds for the defenses and counterclaim
until the testimony of Plaintiff Rockhill Insurance
Company's corporate representative's deposition in
May 2019.
Rule
16(b) provides for the issuance of a scheduling order which,
in relevant part, sets forth time limits to amend the
pleadings. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). With respect to modification,
Rule 16 provides that a “schedule may be modified only
for good cause and with the judge's consent.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). The good cause standard set forth in
the Rule “precludes modification unless the schedule
cannot ‘be met despite the diligence of the party
seeking the extension.'” See Sosa v. Airprint
System., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998) (per
curiam) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee notes).
The Amended Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order was entered on
January 4, 2019 (doc. 54). The deadline for amendment of
pleadings was February 28, 2019. The instant motion was filed
May 31, 2019, after the deadline. However, SCC noticed the
deposition and deposed the corporate representative during
the discovery period as set forth in the Amended Scheduling
Order. The deposition was taken May 2019 and discovery does
not end until July 2019. Thus, SCC acted with due diligence
in pursuing discovery as well as after the grounds for
amendment were ascertained at the corporate
representative's deposition. Additionally, the docket
indicates that the parties are actively engaged in discovery
and have sought extensions of certain discovery deadlines.
Good
cause to allow the modification having been shown, the Court
considers whether leave to amend should be granted. Rule
15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs
amendments to pleadings. At this stage in the litigation,
Rule 15(a)(2) applies and instructs the district court that
it “should freely give leave” to amend a pleading
“when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(2). Therefore, “unless a substantial reason
exists to deny leave to amend, the discretion of the district
court is not broad enough to permit denial[.]” City
of Miami v. Bank of America Corp., 800 F.3d 1262, 1286
(11th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted); Laurie v. Ala. Ct.
of Crim. App., 256 F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2001)
(explaining that overall “there must be a substantial
reason to deny a motion to amend.”). The district court
“may consider several factors when deciding whether to
grant a motion to amend, including ‘undue delay, bad
faith or dilatory motive [on the part of the movant],
repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by
virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of
amendment.” Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774
F.3d 1329, 1340- 1341 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Equity
Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv.,
Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1241 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230
(1962)); Donley v. City of Morrow, Georgia, 601
Fed.Appx. 805, 810 (11th Cir. 2015) (same).
Upon
consideration of the factors, the Court finds that the
interests of justice require granting the Motion. Review of
the docket indicates that SCC has not engaged in any undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, nor has it repeatedly
failed to cure deficiencies in prior pleadings. SCC informs
the Court that the evidence supporting this amendment is
already at issue by virtue of Rockhill's Count III of its
Amended Complaint and that Rockhill will not be prejudiced by
the amendment, nor any deadlines affected. Although discovery
ends July 8, 2019, [1] except for expert discovery, Rockhill did
not respond to this motion and therefore, did not raise any
argument as to undue prejudice should the amendment be
allowed or futility of the amendment. Accordingly, the Court
finds no substantial reason to deny SCC's motion.
DONE
and ORDERED.
---------
Notes:
[1] The summary judgment deadline is
August 2, 2019, the final pretrial conference is December 12,
2019, and jury selection and trial are scheduled during the
January 2020 term at the U.S. District ...