Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00765/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00765-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 444
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Welfare
Cause of Action: 42:12117 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

CARLA L. THREATT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:05cv765-MHT

) (WO) 

REGIONS BANK, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Plaintiff Carla L. Threatt brought this action

against defendant Regions Bank asserting violations of

the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.

§§ 12101-12213. On February 1, 2006, Threatt filed a

motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and, on

February 2, the court granted the motion with leave to

Regions Bank to file an objection to the motion within

seven days. This case is now before the court on Regions

Bank’s timely filed objection to Threatt’s motion for

leave to amend. For the reasons set forth below, the

Case 2:05-cv-00765-MHT-VPM Document 22 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 7
2

objection will be overruled, but sanctions will be

imposed against Threatt’s counsel.

Threatt seeks to add a count alleging violations of

the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C.

§§ 2601-2654, to her complaint. With its objection,

Regions Bank opposes Threatt’s motion on the ground that

it was filed 42 days after December 21, 2005, the

deadline for amended pleadings, as set by the uniform

scheduling order. Threatt’s counsel says that she failed

to note that the court’s scheduling order set an amendedpleadings deadline different from (and much earlier than)

the deadline of August 1, 2005, which was agreed upon by

the parties during their Rule 26(f) planning meeting held

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f). In fact, Threatt’s

motion to amend incorrectly states that it was filed

within the time limits set by the scheduling order. 

Threatt contends that Regions Bank will suffer no

prejudice or delay if the court allows her to proceed

with the amended complaint, because discovery remains

Case 2:05-cv-00765-MHT-VPM Document 22 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 7
3

open until December 20, 2006, and no depositions have yet

been taken in the case; therefore, permitting a new count

to be included in the complaint will result in no extra

expense or duplication of discovery, including testimony,

for the parties.

Regions Bank argues that it has, in fact, been

prejudiced by Threatt’s failure to file in a timely

manner, because it has already started to prepare a

defense against the ADA claim, and would have to “start

over” with the FMLA claim. This argument is

unconvincing: The expense necessary to research and

prepare a defense against the FMLA claim is exactly the

same now as it would have been had the claim been made

from the beginning. Regions Bank is “prejudiced” only in

the sense that it has to do more work than it originally

anticipated, not because its ability to defend itself has

in any way been compromised by Threatt’s tardiness.

More compelling is Regions Bank’s assertion that the

standard of “good cause” required under Rule 16(b) of the

Case 2:05-cv-00765-MHT-VPM Document 22 Filed 02/22/06 Page 3 of 7
4

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the modification of

a scheduling order is not met by the mere absence of

prejudice to the non-moving party, or by the fact that

the failure to file in a timely manner was inadvertent.

Regions Bank cites White v. Volvo Trucks of N. Am.,

211 F.R.D. 668, 699 (M.D. Ala. 2002) (Albritton, J.), for

the proposition that the “integrity of scheduling orders”

is a paramount concern in this court. In White, the

court refused to allow the plaintiff to call an expert

who was not identified within the deadlines set by the

scheduling order. However, the original deadline in that

case, in keeping with the court’s practice, had been set

on a date requested by counsel for both parties, and then

extended pursuant to a request from plaintiff’s counsel,

who then failed to meet the deadline anyway. In White

the violation was flagrant and clearly inexcusable.

By contrast, the deadline for amended pleadings in

the instant case was set by the court on a date much

earlier than the date which the parties agreed upon, and

Case 2:05-cv-00765-MHT-VPM Document 22 Filed 02/22/06 Page 4 of 7
5

it appears that Threatt’s failure to meet it was mere

oversight. While this certainly does not excuse

Threatt’s attorney’s failure to note and comply with the

court’s deadline, it does distinguish the case from

White, where the attorneys failed to comply with a

deadline they themselves suggested and thus were fully

aware of. 

The ultimate decision to grant leave to amend is

within the discretion of the trial court. In this case,

Threatt’s failure to amend her complaint is certainly the

result of the attorney’s scheduling error. A slavish

adherence to the time lines of the scheduling order will

serve to exalt the sanctity of the court’s time line over

the potentially meritorious claims of the Threatt. While

there is case law holding that absence of prejudice is

not “good cause” for amending the scheduling order, it

cannot be ignored that extending the deadlines to permit

the filing of Threatt’s amended complaint in this case

does not prejudice the Regions Bank in any way. 

Case 2:05-cv-00765-MHT-VPM Document 22 Filed 02/22/06 Page 5 of 7
6

Because the court’s ultimate concern is with

justice--not solely with celebrating its own rules

although that is a critical consideration--the facts of

this case warrant an extension of the deadline to permit

Threatt to file her amended complaint with the added FMLA

count. However, the integrity of the scheduling orders

set by the court must be maintained. The lack of

diligence of Threatt’s counsel gave rise to an arguably

legitimate objection by Regions Bank, and Threatt’s

counsel should bear the cost incurred by Regions Bank in

making its objection. 

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED as follows:

(1) Defendant Regions Bank’s objection to plaintiff

Carla L. Threatt’s motion for leave to amend complaint

(Doc. No. 16) is overruled;

(2) Plaintiff Threatt’s counsel, not plaintiff

Threatt herself, is taxed the reasonable attorney’s fees

and costs incurred by defendant Regions Bank in pursuing

Case 2:05-cv-00765-MHT-VPM Document 22 Filed 02/22/06 Page 6 of 7
its objection to plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an

amended complaint;

(3) Defendant Regions Bank is to submit a statement

of attorney’s fees and costs to the court by March 3,

2006;

(4) Plaintiff Threatt’s counsel, if she disagrees

with defendant Regions Bank’s statement of fees and

costs, may oppose said statement in writing by March 14,

2006.

(5) If plaintiff Threatt withdraws her amended

complaint, she need not pay defendant Regions Bank’s

attorney’s fees and costs.

DONE, this the 22nd day of February, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-00765-MHT-VPM Document 22 Filed 02/22/06 Page 7 of 7