Devine v. Fountain Valley School of Colorado, The

Filing 37

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 08/20/2014. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (docket no. 32 ) is GRANTED. The Second Amended Complaint (docket no.32-1) is ACCEPTED for filing as of this da te of this minute order and is the operative complaint. Within fourteen days, Plaintiff shall file a clean copy of the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1(b). It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (docket no. 20 ) for Good Cause (docket no. 31 ) is GRANTED. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-00441-CMA-MJW
WILLIAM A. DEVINE,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE FOUNTAIN VALLEY SCHOOL OF COLORADO, a Colorado nonprofit corporation,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (docket no. 32)
is GRANTED for the following reasons. The Second Amended Complaint (docket no.
32-1) is ACCEPTED for filing as of this date of this minute order and is the operative
complaint. Within fourteen days, Plaintiff shall file a clean copy of the Second Amended
Complaint pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1(b).
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order
(docket no. 20) for Good Cause (docket no. 31) is GRANTED finding good cause
shown. The Rule 16 Scheduling Order (docket no. 20) is AMENDED to extend the
deadline to amend the pleadings or join additional parties to August 20, 2014, to reflect
this order allowing the Second Amended Complaint to be filed.
The Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (docket no. 32) is made after the
deadline for amendment of pleadings, and thus this court has applied the following
analysis in deciding whether to allow the amendments:
Where, as here, a motion to amend the pleadings . . . is filed after the
scheduling order deadline, a “two-step analysis” is required. Once a
scheduling order’s deadline for amendment has passed, a movant
must first demonstrate to the court that it has “good cause” for seeking
modification of the scheduling deadline under Rule 16(b). If the movant
satisfies Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard, it must then pass the
requirements for amendment under Rule 15(a) . . . .
Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard is much different than the more
lenient standard contained in Rule 15(a). Rule 16(b) does not focus on

the bad faith of the movant, or the prejudice to the opposing party.
Rather, it focuses on the diligence of the party seeking leave to modify
the scheduling order to permit the proposed amendment. Properly
construed, “good cause” means that the scheduling deadlines cannot
be met despite a party’s diligent efforts. In other words, this court may
“modify the schedule on a showing of good cause if [the deadline]
cannot be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.”
Carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no
reason for a grant of relief.
Pumpco, Inc. v. Schenker Int’l, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 667, 668 (D. Colo. 2001) (quotations
and citations omitted). This court finds that plaintiff has satisfied this first step in the
analysis and have established good cause to extend the deadline within which he
may seek leave to amend the complaint.
The second step is consideration of whether the plaintiff have satisfied the
standard for amendment of pleadings required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a):
Rule 15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be freely given when
justice so requires.” Refusing leave to amend is generally only justified
upon a showing of undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party,
bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, or futility of amendment.
Id. at 669 (citation omitted). Based upon this standard, and substantially for the
reasons stated in the motion to amend (docket no. 32), this court finds that the
proposed amendments should be permitted. The court notes that no trial date has
been set in this matter. Moreover, the deadline to complete discovery is November
4, 2014; the deadline to file dispositive motions is December 5, 2014; and the Final
Pretrial Conference is not set until December 18, 2014. In the event the parties
believe that additional discovery is warranted in light of these amendments, they
may move to extend discovery for a reasonable period and to alter any other
deadlines. Id. Thus, any prejudice that might arise from these amendments is
capable of being cured. Id.
Date: August 20, 2014