WILLS v. SEACOAST RV RESORT LLC et al

Filing 73

ORDER denying 62 Motion to Enlarge Time to Join Additional Parties. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (CWP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

CYNTHIA S. WILLS,
Plaintiff,

v.

SEACOAST RV RESORT,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:13-cv-00210-DBH

ORDER
ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENLARGE
TIME TO JOIN ADDITIONAL PARTIES
(ECF NO. 62)
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Enlarge Plaintiff to Join additional
parties as Plaintiffs.” (See ECF No. 61 at 2; ECF No. 62.)
In its December 2, 2013, Scheduling Order, the Court designated September 30, 2013, as
the deadline for the parties to amend the pleadings and join additional parties. On September 26,
2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint and to join additional defendants. The Court
granted Plaintiff’s motion on October 7, 2013. On February 18, 2014, as part of her response to
Defendant Saco & Biddeford Savings Institution’s Motion to Enlarge Expert Witness Designation
Deadline, Plaintiff included the current motion.
To obtain an amendment of the Scheduling Order, a party must demonstrate good cause.
Johnson v. Spencer Press of Maine, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 27, 30 (D. Me. 2002); El–Hajj v. Fortis
Benefits Ins. Co., 156 F. Supp. 2d 27, 34 (D. Me. 2001); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). A court’s
decision on good cause “focuses on the diligence (or lack thereof) of the moving party more than
1

it does on any prejudice to the party-opponent.” Steir v. Girl Scouts of the USA, 383 F.3d 7, 12
(1st Cir. 2004).
Although in the pending motion Plaintiff seeks to join additional parties, Plaintiff does not
identify the potential parties, nor does she explain the bases for the joinder of the parties.
Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to provide a persuasive argument to support an amendment of the
pleadings six months after the court-established deadline for amendment of the pleadings and
joinder of parties.
In short, Plaintiff has not convinced the Court that the requested relief is warranted.
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s “Motion to Enlarge Plaintiff to Join additional parties as
Plaintiffs.” 1
CERTIFICATE
Any objections to this Order shall be filed in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
So Ordered.
April 1, 2014

/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge

Through the motion, Plaintiff also requests that the Court “Order Defendants Seacoast et. al. and SBSI to provide
the names of residents at Seacoast Resort Community both past and present whose loans reside with Defendant SBSI.”
(ECF No. 61 at 2.) To the extent that Plaintiff is asking the Court to compel Defendant Saco & Biddeford Savings
Institution to produce identifying information regarding some of its clients who are not parties to this action, the
information is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Court thus denies
Plaintiff’s request.
1

2