Johnson v. Colvin et al
OPINION AND ORDER granting plf Johnson's 50 motion for leave to amend his second amended complaint, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Myron H. Thompson on 11/3/08. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT JOHNSON, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Irene Johnson, Plaintiff, v. WILLIE EVA BALDWIN, Defendant.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07cv1068-MHT (WO)
OPINION AND ORDER Based on the representations made by counsel for both parties in the hearing on August 20, 2008, it is ORDERED
that plaintiff Robert Johnson's motion for leave to amend his second amended complaint (Doc. No. 50) is granted. The court is satisfied that plaintiff Robert Johnson has shown good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) for his failure to amend the complaint prior to the March 24, 2008, deadline of the uniform scheduling order.
Furthermore, the Court finds pursuant to Rule 15(a) that
the interests of justice are served by the amendment given that the amendment goes to the heart of Johnson's case, that there is admittedly no prejudice to defendant Willa Eva Baldwin, and that the pretrial conference is not scheduled until October 27, 2008. See Sosa v.
Airprint Sys., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (11th Cir. 1998) (discussing two-step process by which good cause is first shown under Rule 16 before the requirements of justice are considered under Rule 15). The court also finds, however, that, in waiting until July 25, 2008, to file this amendment, Johnson has been dilatory. As a result, the court has proposed--and
counsel for Johnson accepted--the sanction of reduced costs. Should Johnson prevail, recoverable costs will be
reduced by one-third. DONE, this the 3rd day of November, 2008.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?