Robinson v. The Mount Pleasant Medical Group, LLC et al

Filing 26

ORDER....Here, the Court concludes that "good cause1' has not been demonstrated. The fact that plaintiff may have moved to amend promptly after beconiing aware of the oversight in not including a Section 1981 claim would not constitute diligence under Rule 16. Accordingly, the motion to amend the complaint is denied. (Signed by Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis on 4/27/2010) (jma)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------x TENISHA ROBINSON, Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER 09 Civ. 4314 (CS)(GAY) -againstTHE MOUNT PLEASANT MEDICAL GROUP, LLC, CAROLINE CAMMARATA, DORIS MASBACK, ADAM WHITEHEAD, ALLAN LIND, ANDREW LOWE, and MITCHELL FENSTER, Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------------x Plaintiff has moved to amend the complaint herein to assert an additional claim for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The complaint presently sets forth claims of race discrimination under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. Defendants oppose the motion contending that plaintiff has not demonstrated "good cause" to amend the complaint after the time to do so under the Civil Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order has expired. Oral argument on the motion was heard on April 12, 2010. The Court reserved decision at that time. Said scheduling order established a deadline of September 25, 2009 for amended pleadings applications to be filed. Plaintiff filed the subject motion to amend the complaint by letter dated February 19, 2010. Plaintiff explains that the failure to include a Section 1981 claim was an oversight that she attempted to quickly correct as soon as they became aware of it.