Standiford v. Rodriguez-Hernandez et al
Filing
57
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Denying (41) Plas' Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines To Join Additional Parties And Leave To Amend Complaint To Add Additional Party; And Scheduling Hearing On Plas' Motion 54 For Sixty Day Extension Of Schedul ing Order Deadlines Pertaining To Discovery And Dispositive Motions for 8/10/2011 01:15 PM in Wheeling District Judge Courtroom, South before Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp Jr.. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 8/5/11. Associated Cases: 5:10-cv-00024-FPS -JES, 5:10-cv-00025-FPS -JES(mji)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
TREVOR STANDIFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 5:10CV24
(STAMP)
MARURO HUMBERTO RODRIGUEZ-HERNANDEZ,
WATER PROVIDERS LIMITED d/b/a SWEET H20
and STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendants.
---------------------------------CYNTHIA WARREN and JASON WARREN,
individually and as next friends
and parents of A.W., a minor,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. 5:10CV25
(STAMP)
MARURO HUMERTO RODRIGUEZ-HERNANDEZ and
WATER PROVIDERS LIMITED d/b/a SWEET H2O,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT MOTION TO
EXTEND DEADLINES TO JOIN ADDITIONAL PARTIES
AND LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD ADDITIONAL PARTY;
AND SCHEDULING HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
SIXTY DAY EXTENSION OF SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES
PERTAINING TO DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
I.
Background
The above-styled civil actions arise out of a two-vehicle
automobile accident that occurred on November 16, 2009 in New
Martinsville, West Virginia.1 Defendant Maruro Humberto Rodriguez-
1
These cases were consolidated for discovery purposes and
dispositive motions per an order of this Court on July 1, 2010.
Hernandez
(“Rodriguez-Hernandez”),
an
illegal
alien
who
was
operating a commercial truck in the course of his employment with
Water Providers Limited d/b/a Sweet H2O (“Sweet H2O”), collided
with a vehicle driven by plaintiff Trevor Standiford (“Standiford”)
and owned by plaintiffs Cynthia and Jason Warren.
A.W., the minor
child of Cynthia and Jason Warren, was a passenger in the vehicle
driven by Standiford at the time of the accident.
Both Standiford
and
result
A.W.
sustained
significant
injuries
as
a
of
the
accident.
Following the accident, the plaintiffs filed complaints in the
Circuit Court of Wetzel County, West Virginia alleging claims of
negligence, negligent entrustment, respondeat superior, and the
tort of outrage.
These cases were subsequently removed by the
defendant, Sweet H2O, to this Court.
In the ad damnum clause of the complaints, the plaintiffs
requested that the Court issue an order prohibiting defendant State
Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) and other relevant
insurance companies involved in the claim from disseminating the
plaintiffs’
information
obtained
during
the
course
of
the
litigation to third parties and indexing bureaus. State Farm filed
a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ requests for injunction relief,
which this Court granted, in both cases, on September 15, 2010.
On March 18, 2011, Sweet H2O filed a motion to modify the
scheduling order to extend the deadlines by ninety (90) days for
independent medical evaluations, expert disclosures, discovery, and
2
dispositive
motions.
Is
response,
on
March
25,
2011,
the
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint.
On
April 25, 2011, the parties, through counsel, appeared at the
Wheeling point of holding court for a hearing on the plaintiffs’
motion for leave to amend the complaint.
At this hearing, the
Court addressed both the motion to amend the complaint and the
motion to modify the scheduling order. After hearing argument from
counsel, this Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to
file an amended complaint to add a negligent hiring claim.
This
Court also granted as framed Sweet H2O’s unopposed motion to modify
the scheduling order.
An order confirming the pronounced order of
the Court was issued on April 25, 2011.
Pursuant to the order, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which includes a claim of
negligent hiring and retention, on April 26, 2011.
At the April 25, 2011 hearing, counsel for the plaintiffs also
expressed
their
intent
to
file
another
motion
to
amend
the
complaint in order to add Lonnie Slavings, an employee of Sweet
H2O, as a defendant.
This Court directed the plaintiffs to file
any such motion to amend the complaint by April 26, 2011.
Thus, on
April 26, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a joint motion to extend the
deadlines to join additional parties and for leave to amend the
complaint to add an additional party.
On May 10, 2011, Sweet H2O
filed a response in opposition to the motion to extend deadlines to
join additional parties and for leave to amend the complaint to add
3
an additional party.
17, 2011.
The plaintiffs filed a timely reply on May
This motion is currently ripe for review.
Also pending before this Court is the plaintiffs’ motion for
a sixty (60) day extension of the scheduling order deadlines
pertaining to discovery and dispositive motions, filed on July 29,
2011.2
This Court will address both motions in turn.
II.
Federal
Rule
of
Applicable Law
Civil
Procedure
6(b)(1)(B)
applies
in
computing and extending time for filing motion papers and provides,
in relevant part: “When an act may or must be done within a
specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time . .
. on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to
act because of excusable neglect.”
Excusable neglect for purposes
of Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be
determined by the individual circumstances of each case and,
depending upon the circumstances, may include inadvertence by the
responding party.
See Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc.
Ltd., 507 U.S. 380 (1993).
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
16,
which
discusses
scheduling, provides that a scheduling order “may be modified only
for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”
Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4). Finally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides, in
2
According to this Court’s order of April 25, 2011 modifying
the scheduling order, discovery was due to be completed on August
2, 2011. The current dispositive motions deadline is August 14,
2011.
4
pertinent part: “[A] party may amend its pleading only with the
opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.
should freely give leave when justice so requires.”
P. 15(a)(2).
The court
Fed. R. Civ.
In deciding the plaintiffs’ joint motion to extend
deadlines to join additional parties and for leave to amend the
complaint to add an additional party, this Court considers all
three of these rules.
III.
A.
Discussion
Motion to Extend Deadlines to Join Additional Parties and
for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add Additional Party
In support of their motion to extend the deadlines to join
additional parties and for leave to amend the complaint to add a
party, the plaintiffs argue that there is an additional necessary
and indispensable party that must be joined in order for this case
to be presented on its merits.
Specifically, the plaintiffs seek
to join Lonnie Slavings, an employee of Sweet H2O who allegedly
permitted Rodriguez-Hernandez to drive the truck that collided with
Standiford’s vehicle on November 16, 2009.
Civil
Procedure
20(a)(2),
the
plaintiffs
Citing Federal Rule of
argue
that
judicial
economy supports the amendment of the complaint to avoid a separate
lawsuit that would need to be filed against Lonnie Slavings.
Further, the plaintiffs allege that the actions of Lonnie Slavings
arise out of the same series of occurrences that proximately caused
the plaintiffs’ injuries.
The plaintiffs also contend that the
addition of Lonnie Slavings as a defendant will ensure that all
5
relevant and interested parties to this case will be present for
the jury to determine liability in this matter.3
In response, Sweet H2O argues that the plaintiffs’ motion is
devoid of any evidence of good cause that would justify the
modification of the scheduling order to allow the plaintiffs to
join Lonnie Slavings as an additional defendant.
According to the
defendant, the plaintiffs have not even attempted to established
good cause for their two-month delay in seeking to add a new
party.4
Additionally, Sweet H2O argues that it would be prejudiced
by the late joinder of Lonnie Slavings because significant written
discovery has already taken place.
If Lonnie Slavings is joined,
Sweet H2O asserts that it would incur additional expenses in
answering new discovery and attending more depositions.
After reviewing the parties’ pleadings, this Court finds that
the plaintiffs have failed to show good cause for extending the
deadline to join additional parties for leave to amend their
complaint.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Robinson v. Twin Falls
Highway Dist., 233 F.R.D. 670, 673 (D. Idaho 2006) (holding that
3
The plaintiffs also state that Sweet H2O has not yet produced
Lonnie Slavings for deposition. Mr. Slavings’ deposition was the
subject of a motion to compel filed on December 1, 2010 by
plaintiff Standiford.
On February 2, 2011, United States
Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert issued a memorandum opinion and
order denying the plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions due to
the plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 30(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
4
According to the July 1, 2010 scheduling order, motions to
join additional parties were due on or before February 28, 2011.
The plaintiffs did not file the motion to amend the complaint to
add Lonnie Slavings until April 26, 2011.
6
the plaintiff failed to establish good cause for failing to move to
amend the complaint and add a defendant because the plaintiff did
not file his motion to amend until seven months after the motion to
amend
deadline,
despite
having
knowledge
of
defendant’s involvement prior to the deadline).
the
proposed
Notably, in his
motion to compel, filed on December 1, 2010, plaintiff Standiford
states that Lonnie Slavings “allowed Mr. Rodriguez-Hernandez to
operate the [commercial truck involved in the accident].” (Mot. to
Compel 2.)
Standiford also alleges that Lonnie Slavings’ “actions
contributed to the plaintiffs’ injuries . . . and thus [he is] a
party pursuant to respondeat superior.”
(Mot. to Compel 5.)
Clearly, the plaintiffs had knowledge of, or at least suspected,
Lonnie Slavings’ involvement in this case as early as December
2010, approximately three months before the deadline for joinder of
new parties.
Yet the plaintiffs did not seek to join Lonnie
Slavings or have the Court enlarge the time to join additional
parties prior to the expiration of the February 28, 2011 deadline
set forth in this Court’s scheduling order.
The only apparent justification for this delay provided by the
plaintiffs is that some of the discovery in this case has been
difficult.
In their reply, the plaintiffs state that they have
been unable to find or communicate with Rodriguez-Hernandez and
that Sweet H2O has been reluctant to produce Lonnie Slavings for
7
deposition.5
The plaintiffs’ alleged difficulty in obtaining
depositions, however, does not establish good cause to modify the
scheduling order to extend the deadline for joining additional
parties.
Moreover, as the magistrate judge noted in his opinion
denying the motion to compel, Standiford did not properly serve and
notice the depositions of Mr. Slavings and Rodriguez-Hernandez in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so as to allow
the Court to compel their appearances in Wetzel County, West
Virginia.
Therefore, it seems that the plaintiffs themselves may
be the source of some of the difficulty in conducting discovery in
this case.
This Court also finds that permitting the plaintiffs to amend
their complaint to add an additional defendant at this late hour
would prejudice Sweet H2O.
Given the August 2, 2011 discovery
deadline, significant discovery has already taken place, including
multiple depositions.
To add another defendant at this time would
require that the discovery period be extended in order for Lonnie
Slavings to conduct his own written discovery and depositions, some
of which would be duplicative of discovery that has already
occurred. Sweet H2O should not be required to incur the expense of
additional
discovery
simply
because
that
plaintiffs
were
not
diligent in seeking to join Lonnie Slavings as a defendant.
5
Since the accident occurred, Rodriguez-Hernandez was deported
to Mexico. Lonnie Slavings apparently resides in Texas.
8
This Court finds that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated
good cause for their failure to timely file a motion to join an
additional party.
all.
In fact, they have not explained their delay at
Accordingly, their motion to extend the deadlines to join
additional parties and for leave to amend the complaint to add an
additional party must be denied.
B.
Motion for Sixty (60) Day Extension of Scheduling Order
Deadlines Pertaining to Discovery and Dispositive Motions
Also pending before this Court is the plaintiffs’ motion for
a sixty (60) day extension of the scheduling order deadlines
pertaining to discovery and dispositive motions.
In support of
this motion, the plaintiffs state that good cause exists for the
extension of deadlines because additional discovery is required in
this matter.
Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that they need to
take the deposition of the defendant’s adverse medical examiner and
possibly other recently disclosed experts, as well as conduct
additional written discovery.6
Given the fast-approaching dispositive motions deadline, this
Court finds it appropriate to schedule a hearing on the plaintiffs’
motion for a sixty (60) day extension.
Accordingly, the parties
are DIRECTED to appear by counsel for a hearing on August 10, 2011
at 1:15 p.m. in the chambers of Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
6
This Court notes that the time period for the defendants to
file a response to this motion has not yet passed.
9
Federal Building, Twelfth and Chapline Streets, Wheeling, West
Virginia 26003.
The Court will permit those out-of-town attorneys having their
offices further than forty miles from the point of holding court to
participate in the conference by telephone. However, any such
attorney shall advise the Court as soon as possible prior to the
conference of his or her intention to participate by telephone and
shall (1) inform all counsel of his or her appearance by telephone;
(2) confer with other out-of-town attorneys to determine if they
wish to appear by telephone; (3) advise the Court of the name of
the attorney who will initiate the conference call and all such
attorneys
appearing
by
telephone;
and
(4)
initiate
a
timely
conference telephone call with such attorneys to the Court at
304/233-1120 at the time of the scheduled conference. If the
attorneys cannot reach agreement as to the initiator of the call,
the Court will make that determination.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the plaintiffs’ joint motion to
extend deadlines to join additional parties and for leave to amend
complaint to add additional party (Doc. 41) is hereby DENIED.
Additionally, it is ORDERED that the parties appear by counsel for
a
hearing
on
the
motion
for
a
sixty
(60)
day
extension
of
scheduling order deadlines pertaining to discovery and dispositive
motions on August 10, 2011 at 1:15 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to
counsel of record herein.
DATED:
August 5, 2011
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
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?