Salinas vs The Rock Island Boatworks, et al
Filing
39
ORDER denying 37 Defendants Gesiorski's and Miroux's Motion to Amend Answers and Affirmative Defenses. See Written Order. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 6/17/2016. (KZ, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 17 June, 2016 11:49:32 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
ARTURO SALINAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 4:13-cv-04069-SLD-JEH
ROCK ISLAND BOATWORKS, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
Order
Now before the Court is the Defendants Richard Gesiorski’s and Michael
Miroux’s Motion to Amend Answers and Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 37). The
Plaintiff filed a Resistance to Motion to Amend Answers and Affirmative
Defenses (Doc. 38) and for the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
I
On August 6, 2013, this case was removed to federal court. The Plaintiff’s
Complaint included a count for false imprisonment and false arrest against
Defendant Miroux, a count for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Miroux, a
count for false arrest and false imprisonment against Defendant Gesiorski, and a
count for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Gesiorski. 1 On September 2, 2014,
Defendant Gesiorski filed his Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses
(Doc. 13) and Defendant Miroux filed his Answer to Complaint (Doc. 14). Both
Defendants asserted affirmative defenses of qualified immunity, public official
immunity, and immunity pursuant to the Local Governmental & Governmental
Employees Tort Immunity Act. On October 3, 2014, the Court held a Rule 16
Included in the Complaint were additional counts against two other Defendants. However, those two
Defendants were dismissed from the case on February 9, 2016 pursuant to a stipulation to dismiss.
1
1
Scheduling Conference at which time the deadline to amend pleadings was set
for December 1, 2014. On July 21, 2015, the Court extended the discovery and
dispositive deadlines and accordingly reset the Final Pretrial Conference and
jury trial. The trial was again reset to June 20, 2016. On March 31, 2016, the
Court again reset the Final Pretrial Conference and jury trial after counsel for the
parties indicated that the new trial setting was not mutually agreeable to the
parties. A settlement conference was held on May 17, 2016, but no settlement
was reached at that time. This matter currently remains set for Final Pretrial
Conference on August 10, 2016 and a jury trial on September 12, 2016. On May
18, 2016, Defendants Gesiorski and Miroux filed their Motion to Amend Answers
and Affirmative Defenses.
In their Motion to Amend, the Defendants seek leave to file amended
answers and affirmative defenses to add the affirmative defense of sovereign
immunity to the Plaintiff’s state law claims of false arrest and false imprisonment
and to remove the previously-asserted affirmative defense of immunity pursuant
to the Local Governmental & Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act.
They argue, in part:
The Seventh Circuit has held that the State Lawsuit Immunity Act
does not deprive the federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Fields v. Wharrie, 672 F.3d 505, 518 (7th Cir. 2012); Rodriguez v. Cook
County, Ill., 664 F.3d 627, 630-32 (7th Cir. 2011). However, state-law
sovereign immunity is still an affirmative defense that can be
asserted by a defendant. Woods v. Cook County, Ill., No. 13 C 2607,
2014 WL 340422, *4 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2014).
(Doc. 37 at pg. 2). The Defendants further argue that their undersigned counsel
was assigned to the case in March 2016 and that there will be no prejudice to the
Plaintiff if they are allowed to amend because there has been no reduction in the
Plaintiff’s ability to meet the defense on the merits.
2
In opposition to the Motion to Amend, the Plaintiff notes that Judge
Darrow denied the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss which was brought, in part,
on the grounds that Defendants Gesiorski and Miroux were entitled to qualified
immunity; Judge Darrow denied the Motion to Dismiss on those grounds. The
Plaintiff argues that it has now been almost two years since the Defendants filed
their Answers, discovery has closed, and the Defendants failed to raise the issue
of sovereign immunity in any way, shape, or form. The Plaintiff further argues
that the Defendants missed the deadline to file a motion for summary judgment
(January 29, 2016) and thus did not timely request a dismissal on the basis of
sovereign immunity. The Plaintiff argues that it is extremely prejudicial to him
to assert such a defense at this late date.
II
The question of whether to allow the Defendants to amend their Answers
and Affirmative Defenses at this late stage – after the deadline for amendment of
pleadings has expired – must be evaluated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
16(b). See Trustmark Ins. Co. v. General & Cologne Life Re of America, 424 F.3d 542,
553 (7th Cir. 2005) (“To amend a pleading after the expiration of the trial court's
Scheduling Order deadline to amend pleadings, the moving party must show
‘good cause’”); FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for
good cause and with the judge’s consent”) (emphasis added); Mintel Int’l Group,
Ltd. v. Neergheen, 636 F. Supp. 2d 677, 689 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (applying the Rule 16(b)
standard where the parties’ deadline to amend the pleadings passed nearly two
months before the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint to add
an additional count); Winfrey v. Walsh, 2008 WL 1766600, at *3 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 14,
2008) (applying the Rule 16(b) standard where the parties’ deadline to amend the
pleadings passed less than one month before the plaintiff filed her motion for
leave to amend to plead a medical malpractice case); and Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC
3
v. Rogers Cartage Co., 2013 WL 441089, *2 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 5, 2013) (applying the Rule
16(b) standard where the parties’ deadline to amend the pleadings passed
approximately eight months before the plaintiff sought leave to amend to add a
contribution claim).
At this stage of the litigation, the Defendants must show “good cause.”
Trustmark Ins. Co., 424 F.3d at 553. Good cause requires a showing of diligence
by the party seeking the amendment. Id. Furthermore, the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals has explained that many of its decisions hold that “a district court
may (though it need not) permit an untimely affirmative defense, provided the
plaintiff does not suffer prejudice from the delay.” Global Tech. & Trading, Inc. v.
Tech Mahindra Ltd., 789 F.3d 730, 731 (7th Cir. 2015) (noting that Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8(c) does not specify the consequence for a litigant’s failure to
include an affirmative defense in an answer).
Here, the Defendants have not shown diligence in seeking leave to file
their amended answers to add the affirmative defense of sovereign immunity.
They filed their original Answers and Affirmative Defenses nearly two years ago
on September 2, 2014, Discovery closed nearly six months ago on December 28,
2015, and trial is less than three months from now on September 12, 2016.
Though the Court understands Defendants’ current counsel was assigned to this
case only recently (March 22, 2016) and while the Court assigns no fault to
current counsel, the Court cannot excuse such an untimely attempt to raise a
rather significant affirmative defense for that reason. During the many months
this case proceeded through the motion to dismiss stage, discovery, extensions of
discovery, extensions to the Final Pretrial Conference and jury trial dates, and
settlement negotiations, ample opportunity presented itself for the Defendants to
seek leave to file amended answers raising the affirmative defense of sovereign
4
immunity. The Defendants have not established diligence in seeking to amend
their Answers and so they have not shown good cause.
The Defendants’ attempt to argue away prejudice to the Plaintiff if their
Motion to Amend is granted falls short. The aforementioned delay in bringing
the Motion to Amend and the current stage of the proceedings clearly illustrates
that the Plaintiff would suffer prejudice if the Motion were allowed.
Lastly, the authority the Defendants cite in support of their Motion to
Amend suggests that the affirmative defense of sovereign immunity would not
be viable in this case in any event. Though not specifically articulated in the
Complaint, it appears that the Plaintiff has sued the Defendants in their personal
capacities in light of the fact that he seeks money damages from them for his
claims of false arrest and false imprisonment. See Rodriguez, 664 F.3d at 631
(“Rodriguez is not entirely clear about the capacity in which he has sued the
prosecutors, but we think that his complaint is best understood as presenting a
personal-capacity claim—which is the only way he could get damages from them
. . . .”); Kroll v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ill., 934 F.2d 904, 907 (7th Cir. 1991) (a
plaintiff’s victory in a personal-capacity suit is a victory only against the
individual defendant and an award of damages may be executed only against
that defendant official’s personal assets). The Rodriguez court determined that
there was no jurisdictional obstacle to litigating all of that suit in federal court
where individual-capacity claims against prosecutors were not covered by the
Eleventh Amendment or “the residual principle of state sovereign immunity
recognized in Hans v. La., 134 U.S. 1 (1890) . . . .” 664 F.3d at 632 (emphasis
added).
The underlying district court opinion in Fields v. Wharrie - Fields v. City of
Chicago - explained that sovereign immunity did not deprive that federal court of
subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims where, at the then5
current stage of that case his state law claims did not amount to claims against
the State of Illinois. 805 F. Supp. 2d 536, 549 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (reversed in part on
other grounds). Finally, in Woods v. Cook Cnty., the district court concluded that
under the authority of Rodriguez and Fields v. Wharrie, the Eleventh Amendment
did not apply to the plaintiff’s individual-capacity claim against the defendant and
so the Woods court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. 2014
WL 340422, at *4 (emphasis added).
III
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants’ Motion to Amend
Answers and Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 37) is DENIED.
It is so ordered.
Entered on June 17, 2016.
s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
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?