Hultgren v. Veracco et al
Filing
31
OPINION AND ORDER The Court DENIES with leave to refile the Motion for Leave of Court to File Second Amended Complaint DE 23 and the Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines DE 27 . The Court also DENIES as moot the October 8, 2013, Motion for Leave of Court to File Second Amended Complaint DE 29 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 10/29/13. (kjp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
MARYLOU HULTGREN,
Plaintiff,
v.
LAWRENCE VERACCO, in his
individual capacity, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Cause No: 2:12-CV-478-PRC
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Leave of Court to File Second Amended
Complaint [DE 23], filed by Plaintiff on September 24, 2013; a Motion to Extend Discovery
Deadlines [DE 27], filed by Plaintiff on September 27, 2013; and a Motion for Leave of Court to
File Second Amended Complaint [DE 29], filed by Plaintiff on October 8, 2013.
I. Background
This case began on November 19, 2012, when Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in this Court
alleging sex discrimination. Plaintiff eventually retained a lawyer, who filed his appearance on
February 19, 2013. At a March 7, 2013 Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference, this Court set
April15, 2013, as the deadline for Plaintiff to seek leave to amend her complaint. After that deadline
had passed, on July 17, 2013, Plaintiff moved for leave to amend her original complaint. This Court
granted that motion on July 18, 2013, though it appears that Plaintiff never actually filed an amended
complaint.
On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff again moved to amend her complaint to add a variety of
new causes of action, arguing that new facts unearthed in discovery warranted allowing emendation.
In light of this, she also moved to extend the deadline for discovery from October 31, 2013, to
December 20, 2013. Defendants object, arguing that Plaintiff did not give good enough reasons for
granting the amendment and extension.
Plaintiff filed another motion for leave to amend her complaint on October 8, 2013. The only
difference, it seems, between this motion and the September 24 motion is that this one has additional
attachments. Defendants object that this motion was repetitive and referred the Court back to its
response to the first motion.
II. Analysis
There is only one issue in play here: whether the Court should grant Plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15—which governs amendments to
pleadings—provides that, in situations like this, Courts “should freely give leave [to amend] when
justice so requires.” The United States Supreme Court has explained that “freely give” means that:
In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith
or dilatory motive on the part of a movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of
allowance of the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc.—the leave sought
should, as the rules require, be freely given.
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Bausch v. Stryker Corp., 630 F.3d 546, 562 (7th
Cir. 2010). The decision whether to grant or deny a motion to amend lies within the sound discretion
of the district court. See Campbell v. Ingersoll Milling Mach. Co., 893 F.2d 925, 927 (7th Cir. 1990).
Defendants make a handful of objections to these motions. First, they object that the motion
is untimely. Indeed, this Court set April 15, 2013—more than six months ago—as the deadline for
seeking leave to amend. Moreover, this Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint
after the April deadline. Plaintiff—for reasons unknown to this Court—never filed the amended
complaint. Second, Defendants also object that Plaintiff does not present any evidence in her motion
to support granting leave. Third, granting leave would put a substantial burden on Defendants, who
2
will likely have to re-depose witnesses, and would likely delay the trial.
Each of these objections is on point. Plaintiff’s two page memorandum in support fails to
explain with any specificity why justice requires granting leave to amend. Without evidence about
what Plaintiff discovered and why she did not know about these potential causes of action and seek
to amend her complaint before the April 15, 2013 deadline, the Court sees no reason it should
impose upon Defendants the burdens of allowing Plaintiff to amend the complaint and extend
discovery. Should Plaintiff promptly file a motion that lays out why allowing an amended complaint
is justified, this Court would consider it.
III. Conclusion
In light of these reasons, the Court DENIES with leave to refile the Motion for Leave of
Court to File Second Amended Complaint [DE 23], the Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines [DE
27]. The Court also DENIES as moot the October 8, 2013, Motion for Leave of Court to File
Second Amended Complaint [DE 29].
SO ORDERED this 29th day of October, 2013.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:
All counsel of record
3
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?