Steptoe v. Chase Home Finance, LLC
Filing
21
OPINION AND ORDER denying 16 Motion for Leave to File. It is ORDERED that Pltf's 16 Motion for leave to amend is DENIED and 17 the First Amended Complaint is stricken from the record. (Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(htippen, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
STEVEN STEPTOE,
Plaintiff,
VS.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-CV-3427
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Steven Steptoe’s (“Steptoe”) Motion for Leave to
Amend Pleadings (Doc. 16), in which Plaintiff requests adding to his Original Petition (Doc. 1-2)
a cause of action for common law fraud. Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., successor by
merger to Chase Home Finance LLC (“JPMC”), filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 19).
Having considered the motion and the response thereto, the record before the Court, and
the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion should be denied.
I. Background
On August 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Original Petition in the District Court of Harris
County, Texas, alleging violations of the Texas Constitution and requesting declaratory and
injunctive relief. On September 21, 2011, Defendant filed its Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) to this
Court.
On January 18, 2012, the parties took part in a scheduling conference, and on January 20,
2012, this Court issued a Scheduling Order (Doc. 8) listing deadlines of March 2, 2012, for filing
motions for leave to amend pleadings, and September 8, 2012, to complete discovery. After
completion of discovery, on October 31, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment
1/3
(Doc. 15), and on November 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings.
II. Legal Standard
After a scheduling order’s deadline for amending pleadings has expired, requests for
leave to amend are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). Fahim v. Marriott Hotel
Servs., Inc., 551 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2008). Under this rule, a scheduling order “may be
modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), and good
cause requires showing “that the deadlines [could not] reasonably [have been] met despite the
diligence of the party needing the extension.” Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 541,
546 (5th Cir. 2003). Four factors are relevant to making this determination: “(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.
III. Analysis
In his motion, Plaintiff makes the conclusory statement that he “[has] been diligent in
amending [his] pleadings,” supported only by the explanation that he “only recently determined
the need to add common law fraud in response to JPMC’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” Pl.’s
Mot. ¶ 7. This simply is not a legitimate explanation for Plaintiff’s delay. Filing the motion to
amend fifteen months after the complaint, eight months after the scheduling order’s deadline,
two months after the completion of discovery, and only upon the unintended prompting by
Defendant through its motion for summary judgment, is not evidence of diligence. Nor does it
support the proposition that the deadline could not reasonably have been met.
A district court has “broad discretion to preserve the integrity and purpose of the pretrial
order” and will modify it only upon a showing of good cause. Sw. Bell, 346 F.3d at 547-48. As
2/3
good cause has not been demonstrated in this case, modification of the deadline to amend
pleadings should be disallowed and the Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings should be denied.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED and the First Amended Complaint (Doc.
17) is stricken from the record.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 12th day of January, 2013.
___________________________________
MELINDA HARMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3/3
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?