Beauchamp et al v. Wallace et al

Filing 71

OPINION AND ORDER directing that, based on the representations made on the record on October 12, 2012, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The motions for hearing (doc. nos. 65 and 66 ) are denied, as further set out; (2) The motion to vacate, etc. (doc . no. 66 ) is denied, as further set out; (3) The pending motions to dismiss (doc. nos. 59 and 60 ) apply to the fourth amended complaint (doc. no. 62 ); Counsel for plaintiffs has informed the court that there is no substantive difference betwe en the third and fourth amended complaints (doc. nos. 52 and 62 ); (4) Because the uniform scheduling order (doc. no. 23 )'s deadline for filing amendments to pleadings (May 15, 2012) has long passed, plaintiffs' counsel is DIRECTED NOT to file another amended complaint without first meeting ALL of the following three requirements: (i) Plaintiffs' counsel must first seek and obtain leave of the court; (ii) Plaintiffs' counsel must comply with Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as further set out; and (iii) Plaintiffs' counsel would finally have to meet the requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/15/12. (scn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

D’LIVRO BEAUCHAMP; and
OBELISK HEALTHCARE, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MIKE WALLACE; et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:11cv1029-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
Based on representations made on the record on
October 12, 2012, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1) The motions for hearing (doc. nos. 65 and 66) are
denied.

A hearing was held on October 12, 2012.

(2) The motion to vacate, etc. (doc. no. 66) is
denied.

The dispositive-motion deadline is not imminent.

(3) The pending motions to dismiss (doc. nos. 59 and
60) apply to the fourth amended complaint (doc. no. 62).
Counsel for plaintiffs has informed the court that there
is no substantive difference between the third and fourth
amended complaints (doc. nos. 52 and 62).

(4) Because the uniform scheduling order (doc. no.
23)’s deadline for filing amendments to pleadings (May 15,
2012) has long passed, plaintiffs’ counsel is DIRECTED NOT
to file another amended complaint without first meeting
ALL of the following three requirements:
(i) Plaintiffs’ counsel must first seek and obtain
leave of the court.
(ii) Plaintiffs’ counsel must comply with Rule 16 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Both Rules 16 and 15
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern a court’s
decision whether to allow an untimely amendment to a
complaint.

Sosa v. Airprint Sys., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419

(11th Cir. 1988).
scheduling

order

Rule16 requires a court to enter a
that

limits

the

time

to

join

other

parties and to amend the pleadings, and, under this rule,
the modification of such a scheduling order may be granted
only upon a showing of “good cause.”

Id. at 1418.

Therefore, “when a motion to amend is filed after a
scheduling order deadline, Rule 16 is the proper guide for

2

determining whether a party’s delay may be excused.”
at1418 no. 2.
might

come

Id.

Here, because any motion to amend that

from

the

plaintiffs

would

come

after

the

scheduling-order deadline (May 15, 2012), plaintiffs would
first have to demonstrate “good cause” under Rule 16
before the court would consider whether the amendment is
proper under Rule 15.

See id. at 1419. To show “good

cause,” plaintiffs would have to show that the schedulingorder deadline could not be met despite “diligence.”
id. at 1418.

See

In other words, plaintiffs’ counsel would

have to show “diligence” before the court would consider
another amended complaint from plaintiffs.

See id. at

1419.
(iii) Plaintiffs’ counsel would finally have to meet
the requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

See id.

DONE, this the 15th day of October, 2012.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE