Sable Cove Condominium Association et al v. Owners Insurance Company
MINUTE ORDER Denying 43 Plaintiff Edge Construction, LLC's Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/14/2015. (emill)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00912-MJW
EDGE CONSTRUCTION, LLC,
OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff Edge Construction, LLC’s Motion for
Leave to File Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (docket no. 43) is DENIED for the
The motion (docket no. 43) 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 not satisfied this first step in
the analysis and has not established good cause to extend the deadline within which
it may seek leave to amend the complaint.
The second step is consideration of whether the plaintiff has 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 Response (docket no. 47) to the motion to amend (docket no.
43), this court finds that the proposed amendments should not be permitted. The
court notes that the motion (docket no. 43) is untimely, that the discovery cut off date
is January 27, 2015 [i.e., within two weeks from the date of this order], and that the
dispositive motion deadline is February 5, 2015. This court further finds that unfair
prejudice would be incurred by Defendant if the Amended Complaint were allowed
to be filed at this stage of the litigation. Lastly, Mr. Ridulfo was the original Plaintiff
Sable Cove’s agent and public adjustor. Mr. Rudulfo is employed by David Greeson
Adjustors. Mr. David Greeson owns both David Greeson Adjustors, where Mr.
Ridulfo is employed, and Plaintiff Edge Construction. See Exhibit A, 30(b)(6)
Deposition of Edge Construction at 30:3-8. This court finds that Plaintiff Edge
Construction had full access to Mr. Ridulfo at all times and could have simply asked
him about his opinions well before his deposition was taken on December 9, 2014.
Date: January 14, 2015
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?