Pachulia et al v. R Usow Accounting LLC et al

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 7/26/2017: DENYING 33 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and GRANTING 34 Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal Documents. (cc: all counsel) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ZAZA PACHULIA and TINATIN
ALAVIDZE,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 16-CV-1531-JPS-JPS

RANDY USOW ACCOUNTING, INC.
and RANDY USOW,
Defendants,

and

ORDER

CAROLINA CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Intervenor Defendant.

On July 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an expedited motion for leave to
amend their complaint. (Docket #33).1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15
dictates that leave to amend a pleading should be freely given “when justice
so requires.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Reasons for denying leave to amend
can include undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the
movant, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility. Airborne
Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiffs propose to re-name R. Usow Accounting, LLC as a defendant, and
add allegations of tax preparation improprieties in 2012. (Docket #33). The
parties dispute who is responsible for the delay in correcting these

Plaintiffs filed a motion to seal certain exhibits attached to their motion for
leave to amend. (Docket #34). The exhibits are confidential portions of Defendants’
document production. Id. The Court will grant the motion to seal.
1

omissions in the pleadings. Id.; (Docket #40). While each side may be at fault
for the present state of affairs, justice does not require amendment for a
different reason. The dispositive motion deadline in this matter passed on
July 20, 2017, and the trial is set for November 27, 2017. (Docket #15).
Permitting amendment at this stage would require adjournment of those
dates, something that the Court informed the parties was not a possibility
at the scheduling conference of January 26, 2017. See (Docket #14). Because
Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment would prejudice the Court’s schedule and
delay justice, their motion for leave to amend must be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file their second
amended complaint (Docket #33) be and the same is hereby DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to seal (Docket
#34) be and the same is hereby GRANTED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 26th day of July, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2