Weise v. AMLI Management Company et al
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 24 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 2/3/2014) (jrr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMLI MANAGEMENT COMPANY
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-1316-B
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (doc. 24), which was
filed on December 20, 2013. Plaintiff seeks leave to file her Second Amended Complaint so that
she may include a federal claim against Defendant under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29
U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (the “FMLA”).
Plaintiff’s current motion was timely filed with respect to the Court’s Revised Scheduling
Order (doc. 20). As such, the Court shall employ Rule 15, which directs the Court to grant leave
freely “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Though Defendant urges the Court to
follow Rule 16, his argument is unavailing. Rule 16 governs revision of scheduling orders and states
that a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). As the Scheduling Order was already amended and Plaintiff’s motion was filed
within the revised deadline, Rule 16(b) does not apply.
Rule 15 affords the Court discretion to grant leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).“Unless there
exists a substantial reason for denying leave to amend, the district court should permit the filing of
a proposed amendment.” Hinds v. Orix Capital Markets, L.L.C., No. Civ. A. 3:02-CV-0239-P, 2003
WL 21350210, at *3 (N.D. Tex. June 10, 2003). “In determining whether to grant leave to amend,
the court may consider several factors, including undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the
part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue
prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment.” Id. (citing Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 182 (1962)).
After reviewing the record and the relevant law, the Court concludes there is a substantial
reason to deny Plaintiff’s request. First, the Court finds no explanation why Plaintiff could not have
brought her FMLA claim initially. Not only did she know about the facts to support the claim when
she filed her original petition, but her FMLA claim could have been heard in state court. See 29
U.S.C. § 2617(a)(2). The Court also finds no reason why Plaintiff could not have amended her
pleading by this Court’s original deadline in June 2013 nor sometime reasonably thereafter. Doc. 11.
Though Plaintiff argues she failed to do so because she did not want to compromise her thenpending Motion for Remand (doc. 8), the Court finds this unpersuasive. The Motion for Remand
turned on the viability of Plaintiff’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against an instate resident. Inclusion of an FMLA claim would not have affected the relevant analysis and would
not have changed the Court’s finding of fraudulent joinder. Doc. 15.
The Court is also unconvinced by Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant would suffer no undue
prejudice by granting leave. Defendant has already deposed Plaintiff, and the Court takes seriously
Defendant’s position that it has not exchanged any written discovery regarding Plaintiff’s FMLA
claim. Now to include the FMLA claim, which pre-dates Plaintiff’s current causes of action by
roughly two years, would no doubt require broader discovery and could even cause a further
rescheduling of the current discovery deadline of March 24, 2014.
In light of Plaintiff’s repeated failure to amend her pleading since the outset of this litigation,
the likelihood of undue prejudice to Defendant, and the risk of further delay to the Court’s schedule,
the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.
SIGNED: February 3, 2014.
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?