Equal Employment Opportunity Commision v. Tim Shepherd MD PA

Filing 43

Memorandum Opinion and Order Denies without prejudice 34 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision,and Denies as moot 42 Motion to Expedite Ruling on Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 4/4/2019) (svc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIM SHEPHERD, M.D., P.A. d/b/a
Shepherd Healthcare,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-2569-L

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”)
Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 34), filed February 8, 2019; and
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Unopposed Motion for Expedited Ruling on
EEOC Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 42), filed April 3, 2019.
For the reasons that follow, the court denies without prejudice Plaintiff Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 34);
and denies as moot the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Unopposed Motion for
Expedited Ruling on EEOC Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 42).
The EEOC seeks leave to file a second amended complaint, and Defendant Tim
Shepherd, M.D., opposes the relief sought. The court declines to address the merits of the
motion because it was filed under the incorrect rule of civil procedure.
The EEOC seeks leave to amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2),
which provides in part that a “[c]ourt shall freely give leave when justice so requires.” Before
the court can modify a scheduling order and grant leave to amend a pleading under Rule 15(a),
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 1

the movant must first show “good cause” for failure to meet the scheduling order deadline under
Rule 16(b). S & W Enters., L.L.C. v. Southwest Bank of Alabama, 315 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir.
2003) (“Rule 16(b) governs amendment of pleadings after a scheduling order deadline has
expired.”). A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s
consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The good cause standard requires the “party seeking relief to
show that the deadlines [could not] reasonably [have been] met despite the diligence of the party
needing the extension.” S & W Enters., 315 F.3d at 535 (citation omitted). “Only upon the
movant’s demonstration of good cause to modify the scheduling order will the more liberal
standard of Rule 15(a) apply to the district court’s decision to grant or deny leave.” Id. at 536.
In deciding whether to allow an untimely amendment, a court considers “(1) the explanation for
the failure to timely move for leave to amend; (2) the importance of the amendment; (3) potential
prejudice in allowing the amendment; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such
prejudice.” Id. at 536 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted).
As a scheduling order has been issued in this case and the deadline to amend pleadings
has expired, Rule 16(b), not Rule 15(a), controls. No analysis or discussion of the required
factors has been presented by the EEOC, and the court, therefore, is unable to analyze and decide
the EEOC’s motion under the applicable law. For this reason, the court will deny without
prejudice the motion for leave.
With respect to the motion for an expedited ruling, it is moot and will be denied. The
court notes that this is the second motion filed in this action for an expedited ruling. The court
has an extremely busy schedule, and the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas has
two judicial vacancies. Motions to expedite should not be routinely filed because they often
unnecessarily consume scarce judicial resources. If a motion for expedited consideration is filed,
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 2

at a minimum, the movant should correctly state the applicable law; otherwise, expedition fails to
be accomplished.
For the reasons herein stated, the court denies without prejudice Plaintiff Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint
(Doc. 34); and denies as moot the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Unopposed
Motion for Expedited Ruling on EEOC Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint
(Doc. 42).
It is so ordered this 4th day of April, 2019.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 3