Morales-Perez v. Stone Forestry Services Inc et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying 25 Motion for Joinder. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 10/07/2015.(adeh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Jose Luis Morales-Perez and
Angel de Jesus Lopez-Russell,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
Stone Forestry Services, Inc.,
)
Juan Campos, and Randy Stone,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No.: 2:15-cv-948-PMD
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Join Parties Plaintiff and for
Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 25). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court
denies Plaintiffs’ motion.
BACKGROUND/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Jose Luis Morales-Perez is a Mexican citizen who came to this country to work
under the H-2B visa program. He filed this action on February 27, 2015, claiming Defendants
failed to pay him wages to which he is entitled, to reimburse him for expenses he incurred in
coming to and living in America, and to provide him lodging. Morales-Perez asserted claims
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., and the South Carolina Payment
of Wages Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 41-10-10 et seq. He also asserted a South Carolina commonlaw breach of contract claim.
Plaintiff Angel de Jesus Lopez-Russell was one of Morales-Perez’s co-workers. He
joined this case on April 22, 2015, when he and Morales-Perez filed an amended complaint. In

addition to bringing in Lopez-Russell, the amended complaint revised some of the original
complaint’s allegations.
On June 2, 2015, this Court entered a scheduling order. The order provides, inter alia,
that “Motions to join other parties and amend the pleadings shall be filed no later than July 24,
2015.” (Sched. Order, ECF No. 21, at 1.) That deadline passed without any party filing a
motion to amend, to add a party, or to modify the scheduling order.
On September 8, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the present motion. They seek leave to file a
second amended complaint that would join four more of their co-workers as plaintiffs, add
allegations related to those four new plaintiffs, and add a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1592.
Defendants filed a Response in opposition on September 25.
DISCUSSION
A motion to amend a pleading in order to join additional parties implicates Rules 15(a)(2)
and 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hinson v. Norwest Fin. S.C., Inc., 239
F.3d 611, 618 (4th Cir. 2001) (“[A] court determining whether to grant a motion to amend to join
additional plaintiffs must consider both the general principles of amendment provided by Rule
15(a) and also the more specific joinder provisions of Rule 20(a).”). If the motion is filed after
the applicable scheduling order deadline has expired, Rule 16(b)(4) imposes an additional layer
of analysis. See Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 2008) (“[A]after
the deadlines provided by a scheduling order have passed, the good cause standard [of Rule
16(b)(4)] must be satisfied to justify leave to amend the pleadings.”). Before the motion is
analyzed on its merits, the moving party must prove there is “good cause” for modifying the
already-expired amendment deadline so as to make the motion retroactively timely. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s

2

consent.”); Dilmar Oil Co. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 986 F. Supp. 959, 980 (D.S.C. 1997)
(“Once a scheduling order’s deadline for amendment of pleadings has passed, a movant must
first demonstrate to the court that it has a ‘good cause’ for seeking modification of the
scheduling deadline under Rule 16(b).

If the movant satisfies Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’

standard, it must then pass the requirements for amendment under Rule 15(a).”).
Because the good-cause standard of Rule 16(b)(4) requires courts to focus on the moving
party’s reasons for failing to seek amendment before the scheduling order’s deadline, “the
primary consideration is the diligence of the moving party.” Montgomery v. Anne Arundel Cty.,
182 F. App’x 156, 162 (4th Cir. 2006). Plaintiffs do not contend that they could not have filed
their motion before the scheduling order’s deadline passed.

Indeed, they do not even

acknowledge the deadline or the untimeliness of their motion. Because Plaintiffs have not
shown they were diligent, they have not met their burden of proving good cause.
If the moving party was not diligent, “the inquiry should end.” Rassoull v. Maximus,
Inc., 209 F.R.D. 372, 374 (D. Md. 2002) (citation, quotation marks, and emphasis omitted).
Thus, the Court will not consider whether Rules 15 or 20 allow any of the proposed amendments.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Join
Parties Plaintiff and for Leave to File Amended Complaint is DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 7, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina

3