Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Deborah C. Broil’s motion for reconsideration and for leave to file a second amended complaint. The court held that Broil failed to establish good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) for seeking amendment after the scheduling-order deadline and also failed to comply with District of Kansas Local Rule 15.1. The court noted that Broil had abandoned her request for reconsideration of the prior dismissal of her retaliatory hostile-work-environment claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff was entitled to leave to amend her complaint after the scheduling-order deadline without demonstrating good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4).
- Whether plaintiff's failure to comply with District of Kansas Local Rule 15.1 independently justified denial of leave to amend.
- Whether the court should reconsider its prior dismissal of plaintiff's retaliatory hostile-work-environment claim after identifying an error in the legal standard, where plaintiff abandoned her reconsideration request.
Holdings
- A party seeking leave to amend after a scheduling-order deadline must first demonstrate good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), and then satisfy Rule 15(a). Because plaintiff made no good-cause argument, the court properly denied leave to amend without reaching Rule 15(a).
- Failure to comply with District of Kansas Local Rule 15.1(a)(3), which requires a redlined proposed amendment to show all proposed changes, independently justified denial of leave to amend.
- The court did not reconsider its prior dismissal because plaintiff abandoned her reconsideration request and sought only leave to file a second amended complaint.
Key quotations
“After a scheduling order deadline, a party seeking leave to amend must demonstrate (1) good cause for seeking modification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and (2) satisfaction of the Rule 15(a) standard.” (Legal Standard)
“Fatally, plaintiff hasn’t made any argument that her late-breaking request to amend satisfies Rule 16’s good-cause standard. So, the court won’t permit her to amend her pleading.” (Conclusion)
Factual background
The court had previously dismissed plaintiff's retaliatory hostile-work-environment claim under an incorrect legal standard. During discovery, plaintiff developed additional allegations and sought leave to file a second amended complaint after the deadline for amending pleadings had expired. Plaintiff did not explain why the scheduling deadline could not have been met through diligent efforts and admitted that her redlined proposed pleading did not show all changes.
Procedural history
After plaintiff filed an employment-discrimination action, defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted that motion in part and dismissed plaintiff's retaliatory hostile-work-environment claim, later acknowledging that it had applied the wrong legal standard to that claim. Plaintiff then moved for reconsideration and leave to amend based on facts learned during discovery, but she abandoned reconsideration and failed to address Rule 16(b)(4)'s good-cause requirement or comply fully with District of Kansas Local Rule 15.1. The court denied the motion.