Miles et al v. Illini State Trucking Co

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 47 MOTION to Amend 19 Scheduling Order, filed by Illini State Trucking Co. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 5/4/2017) (Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
QUINCY MILES, On Behalf of Himself
and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
VS.
ILLINI STATE TRUCKING CO.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§ Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-0778-D
§
§
§
§
§

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Defendant’s March 6, 2017 motion to amend scheduling order is denied.1 Defendant’s
motion does not address the good cause standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) or the pertinent fourfactor test. “When a party . . . does not address the good cause standard under Rule 16(b)(4), this
court typically denies the motion for that reason alone.” Wachovia Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Schlegel,
2010 WL 2671316, at *3 (N.D. Tex. June 30, 2010) (Fitzwater, C.J.) (citing EEOC v. Serv. Temps.,
Inc., 2009 WL 3294863, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2009) (Fitzwater, C.J.), aff’d, 679 F.3d 323 (5th
Cir. 2012)) (addressing motions for leave to amend). The court has made exceptions, however, in
cases where the movant does not address the Rule 16(b)(4) good cause standard, but the grounds on
which it relies to establish good cause are relatively clear. See, e.g., Nieves v. John Bean Techs.
Corp., 2014 WL 2587577, at *2 (N.D. Tex. June 10, 2014) (Fitzwater, C.J.) (“Nieves neither
identifies the correct standard nor cites Rule 16(b)(4) in her brief, but the grounds on which she

1

Under § 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002 and the definition of “written opinion”
adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, this is a “written opinion[] issued by the
court” because it “sets forth a reasoned explanation for [the] court’s decision.” It has been written,
however, primarily for the parties, to decide issues presented in this case, and not for publication in
an official reporter, and should be understood accordingly.

relies enable the court to apply the pertinent four-factor test.”); Cartier v. Egana of Switz. (Am.)
Corp., 2009 WL 614820, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2009) (Fitzwater, C.J.). (“Cartier does not brief
its motion under the Rule 16(b)(4) good cause standard or related case law, but the grounds on
which it relies to establish good cause are relatively clear.”). In the present case, although defendant
uses the term “good cause” in the conclusion of its motion, it makes no attempt to address the good
cause standard or the pertinent four-factor test, and the grounds on which it relies to establish good
cause are insufficient to enable the court to conduct the required analysis of the pertinent factors.
The motion is therefore denied.2
SO ORDERED.
May 4, 2017.
_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

It appears from defendant’s reply that the parties have agreed to some scheduling
modifications. The parties also intended to mediate the case by April 28, 2017. Nothing in this
memorandum opinion and order prevents the parties from requesting court approval of scheduling
changes to which the parties have already agreed or that result from the parties’ efforts to mediate
the case. Additionally, to the extent that a conference with the magistrate judge may assist the
parties in bringing this case to trial or other disposition more promptly and at a lower cost, the court
is willing to grant a request for such a conference.

-2-