Henry v. Doubletree Management LLC

Filing 37

ORDER denying 33 Motion to Amend; granting 34 Motion to Strike. Signed by Chief Judge Linda R Reade on 7/6/16. (ksy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION

STORHM MICHAEL HENRY,
Plaintiff,

No. 15-CV-32-LRR

vs.

ORDER

DOUBLETREE MANAGEMENT LLC,
Defendant.
____________________
The matters before the court are Plaintiff Storhm Michael Henry’s “Motion for
Leave to Amend Petition” (“Motion to Amend”) (docket no. 33) and Defendant
Doubletree Management LLC’s (“Doubletree”) “Motion to Strike Amended Petition”
(“Motion to Strike”) (docket no. 34), both of which were filed on June 16, 2016. On July
5, 2016, Doubletree filed a Resistance to the Motion to Amend (docket no. 36).
On June 6, 2016, Henry filed an Amended Complaint (docket no. 30). In the
Motion to Strike, Doubletree argues that the court should strike the Amended Complaint
because Henry did not request Doubletree’s written permission nor leave of court to file
such amendment. See Motion to Strike at 2. Doubletree also notes that it “does not
consent to amendment of the [Complaint] at this late stage in the case . . . .” Id. Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15 dictates that “a party may amend its pleading only with the
opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Because Henry failed to obtain Doubletree’s written consent and did not request leave of
court to amend prior to filing the Amended Complaint, the court shall grant the Motion to

Strike.1
In the Motion to Amend, Henry requests leave to file an amended complaint.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states that a party may amend its complaint with
leave of court and that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, “plaintiffs do not have an absolute or automatic right
to amend.” U.S. ex rel. Lee v. Fairview Health Sys., 413 F.3d 748, 749 (8th Cir. 2005).
“[D]enial of leave to amend may be justified by undue delay, bad faith on the part of the
moving party, futility of the amendment or unfair prejudice to the opposing party.” Crest
Const. II, Inc. v. Doe, 660 F.3d 346, 358-59 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States ex rel.
Joshi v. St. Luke’s Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552, 557-58 (8th Cir. 2006)) (quotation marks
omitted). “If a party files for leave to amend outside of the court’s scheduling order, the
party must show cause to modify the schedule.” Popoalii v. Correctional Med. Servs.,
512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008); see also Fruit v. Chapman, 2016 WL 2918025, at *2-3
(N.D. Iowa May 18, 2016) (denying a motion to amend a complaint for failure to show
good cause for amending the scheduling order).
Henry states that his proposed amended complaint “maintains the same allegations
against the same Defendant, but accounts for a factual development that has occurred since
the time of the filing of the original [Complaint].” See Motion to Amend at 1. Henry
seeks to add to the Complaint (docket no. 3) the fact that he “was raised by members of
the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa, otherwise known as the Meskwaki
Nation.” Id. Henry also seeks leave to amend “to simply clarify that Count II also
includes retaliation as well as wrongful termination.” Id. Henry argues that the court
1

Doubletree requests that the court order Henry to pay Doubletree’s attorney’s fees
that were incurred as a result of the Motion to Strike. See Motion to Strike at 2.
However, the court declines to do so. Accordingly, the parties are directed to bear their
own costs in relation to the Motion to Amend and the Motion to Strike.
2

should grant him leave to amend because Doubletree has known about this factual
allegation for many months and will not be prejudiced by the amendment. Id. Doubletree
argues that it would be prejudiced by the amendment because discovery has closed and it
has already submitted its summary judgment motion. Resistance at 5. Doubletree states
that, if Henry is permitted to amend the Complaint, it “would likely need to serve new
written discovery, depose [Henry] a second time, submit a new Motion for Summary
Judgment and seek a continuance of trial.” Id.
The deadline to amend pleadings was October 7, 2015. See Scheduling Order
(docket no. 6). The deposition in which the “factual development” occurred took place
on November 20, 2015. See Motion to Amend at 1. The deadline for filing dispositive
motions was May 16, 2016. See Scheduling Order at 1; Doubletree Motion for Summary
Judgment (docket no. 28). On June 6, 2016, Henry filed the Amended Complaint without
requesting leave of court. On that same date, Henry filed the Resistance to Doubletree’s
Motion for Summary Judgement (docket no. 31). Finally, two weeks later, on June 16,
2016, Henry filed the Motion to Amend.
Henry has not demonstrated good cause for modifying the Scheduling Order, nor
has he attempted to explain the delay in requesting leave to amend. Henry argues that
Doubletree would not be prejudiced by the court permitting him to amend the Complaint.
However, Doubletree has already filed a summary judgment motion based on the
allegations in the Complaint and trial is currently set to begin on September 26, 2016. To
permit Henry to add facts and a retaliation claim at this time would result in prejudice to
Doubletree. Therefore, because Henry has not demonstrated good cause for modifying the
Scheduling Order, the facts prompting Henry’s request were discussed at a deposition that
took place nearly seven months prior to the filing of the Motion to Amend and because
Doubletree would suffer prejudice if the amendment were permitted at this late stage, the
3

court shall deny the Motion to Amend.
In light of the foregoing, the Motion to Amend (docket no. 33) is DENIED and the
Motion to Strike (docket no. 34) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of July, 2016.

4