Lobato-Wright et al v. Manjarres et al

Filing 65

MINUTE ORDER denying 61 Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/02/2016.(slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02957-PAB-MJW
STANLEY CREIGHTON LOBATO-WRIGHT, and
TODD ANTHONY LOBATO-WRIGHT
Plaintiffs,
v.
GERRITT KOSER,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint (Docket No. 61) is DENIED.
When such a motion is brought after the deadline set forth in the Scheduling
Order, the “good cause” standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) must be satisfied in
addition to the “interests of justice” standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Here,
Plaintiff makes no effort to establish “good cause” other than to note that (1) Def endant
requested an amendment to correct allegations that Defendant believes have been
proven false through discovery, and (2) Plaintiff’s motion is brought promptly after the
deposition at which certain facts were discovered. To be sure, the discovery of new
evidence that could not have been timely discovered through the exercise of due
diligence would constitute “good cause” under Rule 16(b)(4). But none of the new
allegations in the proposed Third Amended Complaint (Docket No. 61-2) fall into this
category. Rather, all of the new allegations seek to reframe facts (or to reargue law)
that has been part of this case from inception. Accordingly, no good cause has been
established and the motion must be denied.
The Court notes that the tone and tenor of the briefing on this matter, and the
degree to which both attorneys wasted time bickering over matters not relevant to the
foregoing legal standards under Rules 16(b) and 15(a), fall far short of the level of
professionalism the Court expects. There is some indication in the record that defense
counsel is entertaining the idea of a motion for sanctions. Based on the briefing on this
motion, and without prejudging the matter, the Court doubts whether it is advisable for
either party to open that door.
Date: February 2, 2016