Opinion
No. 1:16-cv-00096-TWP-MJD
03-15-2017
SUSAN GRUND, Plaintiff, v. CORIZON, JULIE MURPHY, DAVID HINCHMAN Dr., Defendants.
Distribution to all electronically registered counsel of record via CM/ECF and by U.S. mail to: SUSAN GRUND 941457 MADISON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 800 Bus Stop Dr Madison, IN 47250
Entry
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Susan Grund's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. [Dkt 39.] The Motion is denied for several reasons. First, Grund does not include a copy of the proposed Amended Complaint with her motion to amend as required by Local Rule 15-1. In addition, the motion to amend has been filed well beyond the deadline of July 15, 2016, set forth in the Entry Setting Pretrial Schedule of June 21, 2016. Generally, a motion for leave to amend a complaint is evaluated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). That rule provides that courts "should freely give leave when justice so requires." See also Soltys v. Costello, 520 F.3d 737, 742-43 (7th Cir.2008) (discussing the standard). However, the rule is in some tension with the rule that governs scheduling orders, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Under the rule, district courts are generally required to issue scheduling orders in their cases as soon as practicable. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(2). Courts are required in a scheduling order to set a deadline for filing amended pleadings. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(3)(A). Alioto v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 719 (7th Cir. 2011). Because the motion to amend was filed after the July 15, 2016, deadline, the Court applies the heightened good-cause standard of Rule 16(b)(4) before considering whether the requirements of Rule 15(a)(2) are satisfied. See id. "Rule 16(b)'s 'good cause' standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking amendment." Trustmark Ins. Co. v. Gen. & Cologne Life Re of Am., 424 F.3d 542, 553 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Grund asserts that she has determined the identity of another defendant she seeks to name, but has not shown or even argued, that she exercised diligence in seeking to add this defendant.
For the reasons stated above, the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint must be denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 3/15/2017
/s/_________
TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana Distribution to all electronically registered counsel of record via CM/ECF and by U.S. mail to: SUSAN GRUND
941457
MADISON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
800 Bus Stop Dr
Madison, IN 47250