Inspirations Nevada LLC v. Med Pro Billing, Inc.
ORDER denying 215 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss on 9/8/2021. See attached document for full details. (emd)
Case 0:20-cv-60268-JMS Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2021 Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 20-CV-60268-STRAUSS
INSPIRATIONS NEVADA LLC,
MED PRO BILLING, INC.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend
Second Amended Complaint (“Motion”) [DE 215].
I have reviewed the Motion and the
attachments thereto, all related filings [DE 219, 232, 236], and the record in this case. For the
reasons discussed herein, the Motion will be denied.
Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendant, Med Pro Billing, Inc. (“Med Pro”), on
February 7, 2020, asserting a breach of contract claim, three fraud claims, and an unjust enrichment
claim [DE 1]. On March 4, 2020, the District Judge previously presiding over this case entered an
Order Setting Calendar Call and Trial Date [DE 11], which scheduled trial for the two-week trial
period commencing December 7, 2020. On April 10, 2020, the case was transferred to me, upon
the consent of the parties, to conduct all further proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636
Following transfer, I entered a Scheduling Order [DE 35] moving the trial date to April 26,
2021 (based upon the parties’ preference), and setting various pretrial deadlines, including an
Case 0:20-cv-60268-JMS Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2021 Page 2 of 8
October 19, 2020 deadline to join parties and amend pleadings. 1 Between the entry of the
Scheduling Order and the filing of the Second Amended Complaint [DE 148], I granted multiple
requests to extend deadlines (in whole or in part) [see DE 66, 75, 90, 99, 107, 126, 136, 142]. In
fact, after several extensions, Plaintiff was ultimately permitted [see DE 142] to file its Second
Amended Complaint [DE 148] on April 8, 2021, thereby joining parties and amending pleadings
14 months after this case was filed. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint included 15 claims
against 4 different parties. However, on May 26, 2021, aside from Plaintiff’s breach of contract
claim against Med Pro, all other claims (Counts 2-15) were dismissed with prejudice, and all
parties other than Med Pro were dismissed [see DE 166]. Consequently, only a single breach of
contract claim, which has existed since the beginning of this case, and which is only between the
2 original (and only remaining) parties to this case, remains to be litigated (in addition to Med
Pro’s Counterclaim). 2 Additionally, although the trial date has been continued multiple times [DE
35, 66, 136], trial (on Plaintiff’s sole remaining claim and Med Pro’s Counterclaim) is set to
commence on November 1, 2021.
Now, though, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to bring new claims, based on new facts and
theories, against Med Pro, Melissa Zachariasz, who was previously dismissed as a defendant [see
DE 166], and Jacquelyn Trask-Rahn, who, according to paragraph 112 of Plaintiff’s proposed
Third Amended Complaint [DE 219-3], worked for Med Pro as its in-house counsel from roughly
2015 to 2017. Plaintiff notes that Ms. Trask-Rahn was not included in Med Pro’s initial disclosures
at the outset, instead only being disclosed on April 12, 2021. See [DE 215] at 8. However, certain
Of course, this deadline would have been much earlier absent consent and transfer due to the
December 7, 2020 trial date set by the District Judge prior to transfer.
In its Counterclaim, Med Pro seeks to recover sums for unpaid bills related to the contract that is
the subject of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim.
Case 0:20-cv-60268-JMS Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2021 Page 3 of 8
allegations and new claims in Plaintiff’s proposed Third Amended Complaint stem from a call
involving both Ms. Trask-Rahn and Plaintiff (specifically, its member, Scott Proctor). See [DE
219-3] ¶¶ 7, 117. In any event, once Ms. Trask-Rahn was identified in initial disclosures in this
case on April 12, 2021, Plaintiff asserts it then learned more about her role at a June 10, 2021
deposition of Meredith Barry (a former Med Pro employee who was briefly a defendant in this
case). See [DE 215] at 8-9. Finally, Med Pro asserts it learned additional relevant information
when it conducted Ms. Trask-Rahn’s deposition on June 29, 2021. Nonetheless, Plaintiff did not
file the Motion until August 11, 2021, after the Court’s discovery deadline. The discovery deadline
passed on August 2, 2021 (though the parties were permitted to complete 2 depositions prior to
August 4, 2021). See [DE 188, 205, 207].
When a party seeks leave to amend a pleading after the deadline set forth in a court’s
scheduling order, the party must satisfy both Rule 16(b)(4) and Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See AMG Trade & Distribution, LLC v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 813 F. App’x 403,
408 (11th Cir. 2020). In such a situation, “the plaintiff ‘must first demonstrate good cause under
Rule 16(b) before [courts] will consider whether amendment is proper under Rule 15(a).’” Id.
(quoting Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (11th Cir. 1998)). See also Lamothe v.
Bal Harbour 101 Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 316 F. App’x 844, 846 (11th Cir. 2008) (“If a motion for
leave to amend is filed after the deadline set in a scheduling order issued pursuant to Rule 16 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the motion is governed first by Rule 16(b).” (citing Smith v.
Sch. Bd. of Orange Cnty., 487 F.3d 1361, 1366-67 (11th Cir.2007))). Importantly, in most cases
(including this case), Rule 16(b)(1) requires the issuance of a scheduling order, and Rule
16(b)(3)(A) requires that the scheduling order “limit the time to join other parties, amend the
Case 0:20-cv-60268-JMS Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2021 Page 4 of 8
pleadings, complete discovery, and file motions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). Once a scheduling
order is issued, the “schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). See also Smith, 487 F.3d at 1366 (“[W]here a party’s motion to amend
is filed after the deadline for such motions, as delineated in the court’s scheduling order, the party
must show good cause why leave to amend the complaint should be granted.”). “This good cause
standard precludes modification unless the schedule cannot be met despite the diligence of the
party seeking the extension.” AMG Trade, 813 F. App’x at 408 (quoting Sosa, 133 F.3d at 1418)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Under Rule 15, if the time to amend as a matter of course has passed (as it has here), “a
party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A “court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. Courts
consider several factors when ruling on a motion for leave to amend including “undue delay, bad
faith or dilatory motive . . ., repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and]
futility of amendment.” Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329, 1340 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1241 (11th
Cir. 2009)). See also Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001) (“A district court
need not, however, allow an amendment (1) where there has been undue delay, bad faith, dilatory
motive, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed; (2) where
allowing amendment would cause undue prejudice to the opposing party; or (3) where amendment
would be futile.” (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962))).
Case 0:20-cv-60268-JMS Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2021 Page 5 of 8
Plaintiff has failed to establish good cause to amend its complaint at this late stage. As an
initial matter, even though Ms. Trask-Rahn was not included in initial disclosures until April 12,
2021, and even though Plaintiff learned more information about Ms. Trask-Rahn and her role at
Med Pro during June 2021 depositions, Plaintiff evidently was aware of Ms. Trask-Rahn prior to
the commencement of this case. That is because Plaintiff – through its member Mr. Proctor –
communicated with Ms. Trask-Rahn prior to the commencement of this case regarding certain
issues allegedly related to the new claims. See [DE 219-3] ¶ 117. Indeed, Ms. Trask-Rahn’s
alleged provision of “legal advice” on “the legal ramifications” of insurance reimbursement
schema during that communication constituted part of the alleged “Fraudulent Legal Services” of
which Plaintiff now complains. 3 Id.
But even putting that aside, Plaintiff has shown little regard for the Court’s scheduling
orders in this case and has failed to act with diligence. To be sure, neither party has acted with
diligence, and Med Pro has been the cause of some delay in this case. But Plaintiff is also
responsible for the slow pace of this case to date. Significantly, in recent months, the Court has
stressed to the parties that this case needs to move forward and that the parties will need to meet
deadlines. For instance, at a March 22, 2021 case management conference, shortly after Plaintiff
added new parties (who have since been dismissed), the Court stressed that the parties needed to
Based on Plaintiff’s Reply, Plaintiff apparently contends that it could not recognize that this
“legal advice” on “legal ramifications” constituted what Plaintiff has described as concealed
“Fraudulent Legal Services” because Ms. Trask-Rahn did not indicate that she was legal counsel.
[DE 236] at 5. The Court finds this explanation, in the context of the claims Plaintiff seeks to add
in its proposed Third Amended Complaint, unavailing. To the extent Plaintiff has any such claims,
it surely could have discovered them much sooner with appropriate diligence.
Case 0:20-cv-60268-JMS Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2021 Page 6 of 8
advance the case and that the Court would be unlikely to further extend deadlines. Additionally,
as the Court stated in a July 2, 2021 Paperless Order:
Plaintiff’s counsel has requested a discovery hearing for Plaintiff to make an ore
tenus motion to extend the discovery deadline. Because Plaintiff seeks an extension
of a deadline set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order, Plaintiff will need to file a
motion. Provided that Plaintiff files any such motion by 7/7/2021, the Court will
consider the motion at the 7/9/2021 hearing. Any such motion will need to establish
good cause to extend the discovery deadline (and the other deadlines that will be
impacted by Plaintiff’s requested two-month extension of the discovery deadline).
In attempting to establish good cause, Plaintiff should keep in mind that the primary
reason the Court previously extended the discovery deadline (from 3/8/21 to
7/12/21) was because of the addition of new parties and claims. However, those
new parties and claims have since been dismissed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s attempt to
establish good cause must explain why discovery remains outstanding between two
parties that would have been required to complete discovery four months ago but
for the addition of parties and claims that are no longer before the Court.
[DE 177] (emphasis added). In addition to remarking on various occasions that the Court was
unlikely to further extend deadlines, the Court has also specifically stated in at least two orders
that deadlines would not be further extended “absent exceptional circumstances” [DE 99, 136].
More recently, the Court stated in a July 9, 2021 order that “[n]o further extensions will be
granted.” [DE 188].
Evidently, Plaintiff has failed to heed the Court’s many warnings. Even if the Court were
to credit Plaintiff’s contention that it could not have pursued its new claims until after Ms. TraskRahn’s June 29, 2021 deposition, there is simply no excuse for Plaintiff not seeking leave to amend
until August 11, 2021. Remarkably, Plaintiff indicated in a July 7, 2021 motion that it planned to
seek leave to amend to bring the new claims it now seeks to bring. [DE 180] at 11. That motion
provided numerous excerpts from Ms. Trask-Rahn’s deposition and discussed issues related to the
new claims Plaintiff now seeks to bring. See id. at 5-8, 11. Yet, Plaintiff still waited over an
additional month to seek leave to amend.
In the interim, the discovery deadline passed.
Additionally, by the time Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend was filed, the dispositive motion
Case 0:20-cv-60268-JMS Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2021 Page 7 of 8
deadline was only days away. Summary judgment motions have now been filed, and both motions
are now ripe. Furthermore, trial is less than 8 weeks away (of course, trial was initially set to occur
more than 9 months ago).
At bottom, Plaintiff knew of Ms. Trask-Rahn before this case. But even if it had not, it has
moved slowly since this case has commenced, has been granted numerous extensions, and has
been repeatedly warned that there likely would be no further extensions. Yet, even if Plaintiff was
truly not in a position to seek leave to amend prior to Ms. Trask-Rahn’s June 29, 2021 deposition,
it was certainly in a position to do so when it filed its July 7, 2021 motion.
circumstances, there is absolutely no excuse for then waiting over an additional month to file its
motion for leave to amend. 4 Plaintiff has clearly failed to establish good cause. 5
Cf. Kerruish v. Essex Holdings, Inc., 777 F. App’x 285, 291 (11th Cir. 2019) (“Though the district
court may extend discovery for good cause, it has no obligation to do so, and its decision to hold
litigants to the clear terms of a scheduling order ordinarily will not constitute an abuse of
discretion. Kerruish and Cressman offer no explanation for waiting until the eleventh hour to seek
to depose a witness they must have known would be critical to their case. It was within the district
court’s discretion to hold them to the discovery deadline, particularly given the month it took them
to serve Xavier a notice of intent to take his deposition after the district court demanded more
alacrity.” (internal citation omitted)).
Since Plaintiff has failed to establish good cause under Rule 16(b)(4), it is not necessary to
determine whether leave to amend would be warranted under Rule 15. Nevertheless, in light of
the circumstances discussed above and the rapidly-approaching trial date (which has been
continued multiple times), I find that leave to amend would not be warranted under Rule 15 on
grounds of undue delay and undue prejudice. Notably, not only is this case more than 18 months
old and at a stage where most pretrial deadlines have passed, but the events described in the
complaint (as amended) occurred 4-6 years ago. Granting the Motion would only result in a further
delay of trial, given that it would necessitate reopening discovery and other deadlines. I make no
finding whether amendment would (or would not) be futile.
Case 0:20-cv-60268-JMS Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2021 Page 8 of 8
For the reasons discussed above, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Motion [DE
215] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 8th day of September 2021.
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?