Thomas v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, et al.

Filing 79

ORDER that the 75 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is denied. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 10/28/11.(ESL)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Steve G. Thomas,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al,

13
14

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-10-901-PHX-GMS
ORDER

15
16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Steve G. Thomas’ Motion for Leave to File

17

Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 75).

The Court imposed a deadline in its Case

18

Management Order for all amendments to be filed prior to January 12, 2010. Pursuant to that

19

same scheduling order the deadlines set for engaging in discovery and for filing case

20

dispositive motions has long since expired.

21

While motions to amend are generally governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

22

15(a), “Rule 16 also applies because plaintiff requested leave to amend his complaint after

23

the Rule 16 scheduling order deadline expired.” TriQwint Semiconductor, Inc. v. Avago

24

Technologies Limited, et al., No. CV-09-01531-PHX-JAT, (2010 U.S. District Lexis

25

89690*15 D. Ariz., August 3, 2010). Federal Rule 16(b) provides that “the scheduling order

26

must limit the time to amend the pleadings” in its schedule and that such schedule “may be

27

modified only for good cause with the judge’s consent.” Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

28

16(b)(3)(A), (B)(4) “unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad

1

faith of the party seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party,

2

Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking

3

amendment.” Hulstedt v. City of Scottsdale, et al., No. CV-09-1258-PHX-GMS, (2011 U.S.

4

District Lexis 73530 *4-5 D. Ariz. July 7, 2011). “Although the existence or degree of

5

prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a

6

motion the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification

7

. . . if that party was not diligent the inquiry should end.” Id.

8

Plaintiff provides no good cause for seeking to amend his complaint at this late date.

9

The reasons provided suggest no reason why he could not have earlier sought such

10
11
12
13

amendment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint (Doc. 75) is denied.
DATED this 28th day of October, 2011.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-