Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01081/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01081-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank, a Wisconsin 

banking corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Glen J. Lerner, an individual, 

Defendant.

No. CV-10-1081-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant has filed a motion to modify the scheduling order and for leave to file 

an amended counterclaim. Doc. 47. The motion will be denied. 

 Rule 16 provides that deadlines established in a case management order may 

“be modified only for good cause[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good 

cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” 

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992); see Coleman 

v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Where that party has not been 

diligent, the inquiry ends and the motion is denied. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; see 

Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002). 

 The Court’s Case Management Order in this case provided that the deadline for 

amending pleadings “is 60 days from the date of this Order.” Doc. 34 at 1 (emphasis in 

original). The order was entered on October 4, 2010, creating an amendment deadline of 

December 4, 2010. The instant motion to amend was filed on March 23, 2011. Doc. 47. 

 Defendant claims that good cause exists because the Court did not dismiss his 

Case 2:10-cv-01081-DGC Document 48 Filed 03/25/11 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

original counterclaim until December 16, 2010, after the deadline for amending pleadings 

had passed. Doc. 47 at 2. But Defendant waited more than three months after entry of 

the dismissal order to seek leave to amend, and he has not demonstrated good cause for 

this delay. 

 After reviewing the dismissal order, Defendant asserts, he “had to decide whether 

to further investigate his claims to satisfy the federal Twombly standard[.]” Id. at 3. He 

states that his “deliberations and investigations have been ongoing since the Court’s 

dismissal order in December.” Id. at 3. Defendant, however, was on notice of the 

counterclaim’s deficiencies – under Twombly, Iqbal, and Rule 9(b) – since the filing of 

the motions to dismiss in September 2010. Docs. 23, 24. Defendant also has general 

knowledge about pleading standards given that he is an experienced personal injury 

lawyer. Defendant has not been diligent in asserting valid claims to relief in this case. 

 Defendant asserts that Plaintiff will not be substantially prejudiced by allowing the 

amendment. Prejudice, however, is not the relevant inquiry under Rule 16. Although the 

existence or degree of prejudice to the other party “might supply additional reasons to 

deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 

modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Johnson, 975 F.2d 

at 609 (citation omitted). 

 The deadline for completing discovery is only two months away. Doc. 34 at 2. 

A motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims is fully briefed (Docs. 38, 42, 45) 

and will be ruled on shortly. Absent a showing of good cause, which Defendant has not 

made, the Court will not allow amendments to pleadings at this late stage of the litigation. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to modify the scheduling order and for 

leave to file an amended counterclaim (Doc. 47) is denied. 

 Dated this 25th day of March, 2011. 

Case 2:10-cv-01081-DGC Document 48 Filed 03/25/11 Page 2 of 2