Halsey et al v. Casino One Corporation

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for leave to file second amended complaint [# 63 ] is denied. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on December 12, 2013. (BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

LINDA HALSEY, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
) Case No. 4:12CV1602 CDP
)
CASINO ONE CORPORATION,
)
d/b/a Lumiere Place Casino and Hotels, )
)
Defendant.
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This action is now before me on plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended
complaint. Plaintiffs seek to assert additional causes of action against defendant
Casino One Corporation. Plaintiffs request leave to add class-action claims under
Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P., for violations of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law and
for unjust enrichment. After careful consideration, I will deny plaintiffs’ motion
because I find they have not shown the good cause required to amend under Rule
16(b)(4), Fed. R. Civ. P.
As a general rule, leave to amend a party's pleadings should be freely given
when justice so requires. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Different considerations
apply, however, when a party moves to amend his pleadings after a deadline
established in a scheduling order. In particular, because Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)

provides that a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with
the judge's consent,” the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals requires parties to show
good cause before amending their pleadings if they move to amend after the
deadline established in the scheduling order. See Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs.,
512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008); Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d
709, 716 (8th Cir. 2008).
In considering whether a movant has shown good cause, a district court must
first examine the movant's diligence in attempting to meet the requirements of the
scheduling order. Sherman, 532 F.3d at 716. If the court determines that the
movant was diligent, it may then consider the undue prejudice to the nonmovant
resulting from the proposed modification of the scheduling order. Id. at 717.
In this case, the deadline for amending pleadings and joining parties was set
for January 18, 2013. This deadline, like the others in the Case Management
Order, was based on a proposal made jointly by the parties. Plaintiffs filed their
motion to amend their complaint on October 7, 2013, nearly nine months after this
deadline had passed. Therefore, I will apply the “good cause” standard set forth in
Rule 16, Fed. R. Civ. P.
The plaintiffs do not acknowledge the requirement to demonstrate good
cause for amending the scheduling order. However, they do contend that they have
–2–

not engaged in any “dilatory behavior” and that the new claims are similar to their
pending collective-action claim for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. They argue that litigating the new claims in the same
action will promote judicial economy.
Adding a Rule 23 classification will undoubtedly complicate this case.
Plaintiffs’ claim that they have not engaged in dilatory behavior is simply not
enough to show that the amendments deadline could not “reasonably [have been]
met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Sherman, 532 F.3d
at 717 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), advisory committee note (1983
Amendment)). Therefore, I will deny their request to amend their complaint out of
time for failure to show the good cause required by Rule 16(b).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file second
amended complaint [#63] is denied.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 12th day of December, 2013.
–3–