Conway et al v. Licata et al

Filing 182

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. Plaintiffs' 172 Motion to Amend is ALLOWED IN PART to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to dismiss Counts VIII and XIV. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects. See attached Order. (Matteson, Nicholas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
ANDREW CONWAY, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
Civil Action No. 13-12193-LTS
)
SAM LICATA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND
February 23, 2015
SOROKIN, J.
Plaintiffs move to amend their Complaint by dismissing Count VIII, alleging defamation,
and Count XIV, alleging violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, § 3A, and by adding an
additional count under the California Talent Scam Prevention Act, Cal. Lab. Code § 1702, et seq.
Plaintiffs also seek to amend their answer to add the affirmative defense of illegality.
Defendants assent to this Motion only insofar as it seeks to dismiss the two counts. The Motion
is ALLOWED IN PART; the remainder of the Motion is DENIED.
The Scheduling Order, as subsequently amended, established February 17, 2014 as the
deadline for amending the pleadings. Doc. Nos. 21 at 1, 24. Fact discovery in this matter
concluded on June 20, 2014. Doc. No. 21 at 2. Expert discovery concluded on October 31,
2014. Id. Summary Judgment motions are due by February 27, 2015, with the trial scheduled to
commence on May 18, 2015. Doc. No. 167. Plaintiffs’ Motion to amend by adding a claim is
well past the deadline established by the Court. The timing of the Motion does not arise from the

recent discovery of a factual basis for the alleged claim. Indeed, Plaintiffs cite the arguments
raised by Defendants in a status report articulating the bases on which they will move for
summary judgment as the only explanation for the timing of the present Motion. In these
circumstances, Plaintiffs have failed to establish the good cause required to amend after the
deadline established by the Court in the Scheduling Order. See Trans-Spec Truck Serv., Inc. v.
Caterpillar Inc., 524 F.3d 315, 327 (1st Cir. 2008).
The Court notes several other reasons warranting denial of the Motion. Plaintiffs failed
to attach a copy of a proposed amended complaint or the additions they sought to make to the
Complaint. Only in their reply did Plaintiffs provide an excerpt of additional allegations they
seek to add. The opponent of a motion to amend, and the Court, are entitled to review the
specific additions to a complaint sought by the moving party, especially at this late date. Further,
the addition of this claim would certainly require additional discovery, at least expert and
possibly fact, and would delay the remainder of the schedule.
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Amend, Doc. No. 172, is ALLOWED IN
PART to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to dismiss Counts VIII and XIV. The Motion is DENIED
in all other respects.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge

2