American Safety Insurance Company v. Red Leach & Sons Insurance et al

Filing 33

Order STRIKING 32 Amended Answer to Complaint filed by Lisa Taylor McLaughlin, Red Leach & Sons Insurance, Grady Tripp Leach, III as improperly filed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson on 5/17/2016. (srr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
AMERICAN SAFETY INS. CO.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
RED LEACH & SONS INS., et al,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 15-00639-N

ORDER
This action is before the Court sua sponte on the Defendants’ filing of their
Amended Answer and Additional Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 32). The Amended
Answer (Doc. 32) is ordered STRICKEN as improperly filed.

The amended

pleading was filed on May 16, 2016, far after the deadline for the Defendants to
amend their answer as a matter of course. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A); (Doc. 15
[Initial Answer filed Jan. 21, 2016]).

Therefore, they may now amend their

pleading “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Defendants have obtained neither prior to the filing of their
Amended Answer.
Moreover, the deadline for “motions for leave … to amend the pleadings
under Rule 15(a)(2)” set out in the scheduling order has passed. (Doc. 27 at 3).
Therefore, should the Defendants hereafter file a motion for leave to amend their
answer, they must first show “good cause” to modify the scheduling order under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) before the Court can consider whether to
allow the amendment under Rule 15(a)’s more liberal standard.

See Sosa v.

Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“Sosa's brief
on appeal does not address good cause under Rule 16(b), but focuses instead upon
the liberal amendment standard set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). If
Sosa's motion for leave to amend had been filed within the time prescribed by the
scheduling order, Rule 15(a) would be our primary focus, as well. However, because
Sosa's motion to amend was filed after the scheduling order's deadline, she must
first demonstrate good cause under Rule 16(b) before we will consider whether
amendment is proper under Rule 15(a). If we considered only Rule 15(a) without
regard to Rule 16(b), we would render scheduling orders meaningless and effectively
would read Rule 16(b) and its good cause requirement out of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.” (citations omitted)); S. Grouts & Mortars, Inc. v. 3M Co., 575 F.3d
1235, 1241 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“A plaintiff seeking leave to amend its
complaint after the deadline designated in a scheduling order must demonstrate
‘good cause’ under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).”).
DONE and ORDERED this the 17th day of May 2016.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2