Pari Cahuana v. SUPER AUTOS DORAL, LLC. et al

Filing 50

Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Answer and Affirmative Defenses re 44 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Senior Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 5/8/2024. See attached document for full details. (ebz) Modified Document Type on 5/10/2024 (ebz).

United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Cinthia Liz Pari Cahuana, an
individual, Plaintiff,
v.
Super Autos Doral, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, and
Westlake Services, LLC, d/b/a
Westlake Financial Services, a
foreign entity, Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 23-22312-Civ-Scola
)
)
)
)
)

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer and
Affirmative Defenses
This cause comes before the Court on the Defendant Super Autos Doral, LLC’s
motion for leave to amend its answer and affirmative defenses. (ECF No. 44.) The
Plaintiff responded opposing the motion. (ECF No. 45.) The Defendant has not
filed a reply, and the time to do so has passed.
The Court’s scheduling order set October 30, 2023, as the deadline to amend
the pleadings. (ECF No. 23.) When a party seeks leave to amend after the
deadline to do so has passed, the movant must do more than argue leave is due
under Rule 15(a). The movant must first show “good cause” under Rule 16(b) to
obtain the right to amend. See Sosa v. Air Print Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418
(11th Cir. 1998); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for
good cause and with the judge's consent.”). The standard set forth in Rule 16(b)
“precludes modification [of the scheduling order] unless the schedule cannot ‘be
met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” See Sosa, 133 F.3d
at 1418. Thus, “diligence is the key to satisfying the good cause requirement.”
De Varona v. Discount Auto Parts, LLC, 285 F.R.D. 671, 672–73 (S.D. Fla. 2012)
(Ungaro, J.). Only if “good cause” for an untimely amendment is shown under
Rule 16(b), does Rule 15(a)'s instruction, that leave should be freely given when
justice so requires, come into play. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
As the Plaintiff’s response points out, the Defendant’s motion does not cite to
Rule 16, does not argue good cause exists for untimely amendment, and fails to
illustrate that the Court’s schedule could not be met despite the Defendant’s
diligence. (See ECF Nos. 44, 45.) Even after the Plaintiff’s response highlighted
the Defendant’s deficiency, the Defendant failed to reply to argue good cause
supports amendment. Because the Defendant has not provided any basis to

support untimely amendment of its answers and affirmative defenses more than
six months past the deadline, the Court need not consider whether amendment
is otherwise proper. See Sosa, 133 F.3d at 1418. Accordingly, the Defendant’s
motion for leave to amend the answer and affirmative defenses is denied. (Mot.,
ECF No. 44.)
Done and ordered in Miami, Florida on May 8, 2024.
________________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge