Craig-Wood v. Time Warner Cable

Filing 31

ORDER denying 26 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 2/2/12. (ds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Kelley Craig-Wood,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:10-cv-906

Time Warner NY Cable LLC,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion to
reconsider

the

magistrate

judge’s

order

(Doc.

20)

denying

plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint
(Doc. 18).

This is an employment discrimination action brought by

plaintiff Kelley Craig-Wood against defendant Time Warner NY Cable
LLC, her former employer.

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint

asserted claims of race and age discrimination, including disparate
treatment and harassment, under federal and state law.

On August

6, 2011, plaintiff moved for leave to file a second amended
complaint to allege a retaliatory discharge claim under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.
In his order of October 6, 2011, the magistrate judge noted
that the motion to amend was filed almost two months after June 10,
2011, the deadline for motions to amend specified in the pretrial
scheduling order.

Doc. 20, p. 2.

The magistrate judge indicated

that where, as here, the deadline established by the court’s
scheduling order had passed, the plaintiff must first show good
cause under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) for her failure to timely move to
amend, and further, the court must evaluate prejudice to the
nonmoving party before considering whether amendment is proper

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).

Doc. 20, p. 3 (citing Commerce Benefits

Group, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 326 Fed.Appx. 369, 376 (6th Cir.
2009)).

The magistrate judge observed that the focus is primarily

on the diligence of the movant, and that the absence of prejudice
to the nonmoving party is not the equivalent of good cause.

Doc.

20, p. 4 (citing Deghand v. Wal-Mart Stores, 904 F.Supp. 1218, 1221
(D. Kan. 1995) and Inge v. Rock Financial Corp., 281 F.3d 613 (6th
Cir. 2002)).

After determining that plaintiff argued solely that

defendant was not prejudiced by the delay and essentially offered
no

explanation

for

her

failure

to

move

to

amend

before

the

deadline, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff failed to
exercise due diligence in moving for leave to amend after the
deadline and denied the motion to amend.

Doc. 20, pp. 4-5.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A), a district judge may
designate

a

magistrate

judge

to

hear

and

determine

nondispositive pretrial matter pending before the court.
of

the

court

may

reconsider

any

pretrial

matter

any

“A judge

under

this

subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate
judge’s

order

§636(b)(1)(A);

is
see

clearly

erroneous

also

Fed.R.Civ.P.

or

contrary
72(a)

(in

to

law.”

regard

to

nondispositive pretrial matters, the district judge “must consider
timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order
that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law”); United States v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980)(review by the district court of
the magistrate’s determination of a nondispositive motion is on a
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard).

The ruling of a

magistrate judge on a nondispositive motion “remains binding except
to the extent that the district court modifies or sets aside any
part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
2

Bell v. Ameritech Sickness and Accident Disability Benefit Plan,
399 Fed.Appx. 991, 997 n. 5 (6th Cir. 2010).
provides

considerable

magistrate

judge.

deference

Geiger

to

the

Brothers

This standard

determinations

Mechanical

of

the

Contractors

v.

Lockheed Martin Utility Servs., Inc., No. C-2-98-109, 2000 WL
1456916 at *1 (S.D.Ohio Sept. 19, 2000).

A motion for leave to

amend a complaint is a nondispositive motion.
Federal

National

Mortgage

Ass’n,

276

F.R.D.

Oakland County v.
491,

493

n.

1

(E.D.Mich. 2011).
The magistrate judge applied the correct legal standard in
ruling on plaintiff’s motion to amend. Once the scheduling order’s
deadline passes, a plaintiff first must show good cause under Rule
16(b) for failure to seek leave to amend within the deadline before
a court will consider whether amendment is proper under Rule 15(a).
Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 909 (6th Cir. 2003).

The

magistrate judge correctly concluded that plaintiff failed to offer
any reason whatsoever for failing to comply with the scheduling
order.
In her motion for reconsideration, plaintiff states for the
first time that she was in the process of trying to resolve
problems with the nonpayment of benefits under her COBRA continuing
healthcare coverage, and did not want to “tip her hand” concerning
the possibility of a COBRA claim by moving to amend within the
deadline.

She also notes that she received a right-to-sue letter

dated May 10, 2011, regarding her retaliatory discharge claim.
Plaintiff argues that since she had ninety days under Title VII in
which to bring suit on this claim, she could move to amend to
assert that claim within ninety days regardless of the amendment
deadline in the scheduling order.
3

These arguments were not made to the magistrate judge, and he
did not have the opportunity to consider them.

The Sixth Circuit

has held that the Magistrate Judge Act “absent compelling reasons
... does not allow parties to raise at the district court stage new
arguments or issues that were not presented to the magistrate.”
Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 n. 1 (6th Cir. 2000).

A

party’s failure to raise an issue before the magistrate constitutes
waiver.

Id.

Plaintiff had the opportunity to file a reply brief

to defendant’s opposition to her motion to amend and to advance the
reasons for her lack of diligence which are set forth in her motion
for reconsideration. However, she did not file a reply. Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate any compelling reasons for her failure to
make these arguments to the magistrate judge.
Even if this court were to consider plaintiff’s new arguments,
she has still failed to show good cause for her failure to comply
with the scheduling order’s deadline for amendments.

She claims

that she was in the process of trying to work out problems with her
receipt of healthcare benefits.

However, the documents she has

submitted reveal that her healthcare plan was administered by Time
Warner Cable Connections Healthcare and the TW Cable Health and
Welfare Fund, not Time Warner NY Cable LLC, the defendant in this
case.

Yet another document dated June 5, 2011, prior to the

deadline for amendment, is from ADP Benefit Services.
ultimately received her healthcare benefits.

Plaintiff

Plaintiff does not

explain why she would have had to discuss her efforts to obtain
health care benefits from entities other than the defendant in
seeking to amend her complaint to assert a retaliatory discharge
claim.
Plaintiff’s argument that she could ignore the amendment
4

deadline as long as she moved to amend within ninety days of her
receipt

of

the

right-to-sue

letter

is

also

unavailing.

If

plaintiff wanted to add her retaliatory discharge claim to the
other claims already asserted in this case, she was required to do
so within the procedural framework governing this case.

Cf.

Mallory v. Noble Correctional Inst., 45 Fed.Appx. 463, 468 (6th
Cir. 2002)(lack of a right-to-sue letter did not excuse counsel’s
failure to adhere to the discovery deadline or to move for a stay
of discovery pending receipt of the letter).

She received the

right-to-sue letter a month before the deadline.

If she needed

additional time to consider her options regarding the retaliatory
discharge claim in light of the right-to-sue letter, she could have
moved to extend the deadline for filing a motion to amend on that
ground.

Instead, she allowed the deadline to pass without seeking

an extension, then offered no reason for doing so in her motion to
amend.
The court finds that the decision of the magistrate judge was
not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, and that plaintiff has
waived her arguments concerning her failure to comply with the
court’s

scheduling

order

by

failing

to

present

them

to

the

magistrate judge. Even if the court considers the reasons advanced
by plaintiff in her motion for reconsideration, plaintiff has
failed to show good cause under Rule 16(b) for failure to seek
leave to amend within the deadline.

Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration (Doc. 26) is denied.

Date: February 2, 2012

s/James L. Graham
James L. Graham
United States District Judge

5