Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00901/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00901-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

Steve G. Thomas, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-901-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Steve G. Thomas’ Motion for Leave to File

Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 75). The Court imposed a deadline in its Case

Management Order for all amendments to be filed prior to January 12, 2010. Pursuant to that

same scheduling order the deadlines set for engaging in discovery and for filing case

dispositive motions has long since expired.

While motions to amend are generally governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

15(a), “Rule 16 also applies because plaintiff requested leave to amend his complaint after

the Rule 16 scheduling order deadline expired.” TriQwint Semiconductor, Inc. v. Avago

Technologies Limited, et al., No. CV-09-01531-PHX-JAT, (2010 U.S. District Lexis

89690*15 D. Ariz., August 3, 2010). Federal Rule 16(b) provides that “the scheduling order

must limit the time to amend the pleadings” in its schedule and that such schedule “may be

modified only for good cause with the judge’s consent.” Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

16(b)(3)(A), (B)(4) “unlike Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy which focuses on the bad

Case 2:10-cv-00901-GMS Document 79 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

faith of the party seeking to interpose an amendment and the prejudice to the opposing party,

Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking

amendment.” Hulstedt v. City of Scottsdale, et al., No. CV-09-1258-PHX-GMS, (2011 U.S.

District Lexis 73530 *4-5 D. Ariz. July 7, 2011). “Although the existence or degree of

prejudice to the party opposing the modification 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.” Id.

Plaintiff provides no good cause for seeking to amend his complaint at this late date.

The reasons provided suggest no reason why he could not have earlier sought such

amendment.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Complaint (Doc. 75) is denied.

DATED this 28th day of October, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00901-GMS Document 79 Filed 10/28/11 Page 2 of 2