Civility Experts Worldwide v. Molly Manners, LLC

Filing 245

MINUTE ORDER denying 241 Molly Manners LLC's Motion for Leave to Amend Its First Amended Counterclaim Against Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Civility Experts Worldwide, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/25/2016.(emill)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00521-WJM-MJW
CIVILITY EXPERTS WORLDWIDE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CATHY HULSOF,
APRIL ROLLINS, and
TANYA MACLIN,
Intervenor Plaintiffs,
v.
MOLLY MANNERS, LLC,
FELICIA KNOWLES,
SHANNON COMBS, and
MONIKA VIRTA-GUPTA,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Molly Manners LLC’s Motion for Leave to Amend Its
First Amended Counterclaim Against Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Civility Experts
Worldwide (Docket No. 241) is DENIED.
When the deadline for amending pleadings has passed, the moving party has to
meet the standards of both Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) before
amending pleadings. The “good cause” standard under Rule 16(b)(4) relates
exclusively to due diligence:
In practice, this standard requires the movant to show the “scheduling
deadlines cannot be met despite [the movant's] diligent efforts.” Rule 16's
good cause requirement may be satisfied, for example, if a plaintiff learns
new information through discovery or if the underlying law has changed. If
the plaintiff knew of the underlying conduct but simply failed to raise [the
new] claims, however, the claims are barred.

Gorsuch, Ltd., B.C. v. Wells Fargo Nat. Bank Ass'n, 771 F.3d 1230, 1240-41 (10th Cir.
2014) (internal citations omitted).
The other parties to this lawsuit were granted leave to amend after the deadline
because they argued – and Molly Manners LLC did not contest – that the factual basis
underlying the amendment had only recently become known and could not have been
known earlier despite the exercise of due diligence. (Docket No. 235.) Here, by
contrast, Molly Manners LLC asserts no new or changed facts. To be sure, a new
affirmative defense has been raised by the other parties, in their newly amended
pleadings. But it is not at all clear why a new affirmative defense to Molly Manners
LLC’s existing claims would constitute sufficiently changed circumstances to warrant an
entirely new claim by Molly Manners LLC. For all appearances, Molly Manners LLC’s
counsel has simply had a change of heart as to litigation strategy. This does not satisfy
the standard under Rule 16(b)(4) -- regardless of whether counsel believes “the same
courtesy” should be extended.
Date: February 25, 2016