Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00456/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00456-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EARL APKINS, SR., et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 05-0456-WS-B

 )

ATLANTIC MARINE, INC., )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint. (Doc.

43). The parties have filed briefs in support of their respective positions, (Docs. 50, 51), and the

motion is ripe for resolution. After carefully considering the foregoing and other relevant

materials in the file, the Court concludes that the motion is due to be denied.

The first purpose of the proposed amendment is to remove Alabama Shipyard as a

defendant. (Doc. 43, ¶ 4). Such removal has already been accomplished by previous order of

Court. (Doc. 19 at 1 n.1). To this extent, the plaintiffs’ motion is denied as moot.

The primary purpose of the proposed amendment is to add a claim of disparate impact

under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The complaint was filed by 23 plaintiffs on August 8, 2005. (Doc. 1). 

The Magistrate Judge imposed a deadline of December 1, 2005 for filing motions for leave to

amend the pleadings. (Doc. 22 at 2, ¶ 5). Such “[a] schedule shall not be modified except upon

a showing of good cause.” Fed, R. Civ. P. 16(b); accord Sosa v. Airprint Systems, Inc., 133 F.3d

1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998). Because the plaintiffs’ motion was not filed until April 6, 2006,

they must establish good cause for allowing their tardily proposed amendment. If they fail, the

amendment must be denied without resort to Rule 15(a). Id. at 1419.

 “This good cause standard precludes modification unless the schedule could not ‘be met

despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Sosa v. Airprint Systems, Inc., 133

F.3d at 1418 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s note). The plaintiffs suggest that

the disparate impact claim is based on the testimony they gave in their 23 depositions early this

year and on information obtained from other present and former employees of the defendant. 

Case 1:05-cv-00456-WS-B Document 52 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 2
-2-

(Doc. 51 at 1). A diligent attorney, however, would have gleaned from her clients information

supporting a disparate impact claim without awaiting their depositions by the defendant. Nor

have the plaintiffs shown that they could not in the exercise of diligence have obtained

information concerning disparate impact from other employees in the first four months after

filing suit, or even earlier. Any remaining vitality in the plaintiffs’ position is sapped by their

admission that “[t]he underlying facts supporting the disparate impact claim are the same as

those set out in the original complaint.” (Doc. 51 at 3). That is to say, the plaintiffs

acknowledge they could have asserted a disparate impact claim originally based on the facts

asserted originally.

For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint is denied.

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of May, 2006.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00456-WS-B Document 52 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 2