Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-02655/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-02655-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

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 1

Plaintiffs' Motion to File Pleading out of Time suggests that the Motion to Amend is

only one day beyond the deadline. A correct reading of the Case Management Order

demonstrates that the proposed Motion is two months past the deadline.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeremy Chappella, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

United States of America, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-2655-PCT-DKD

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' May 16, 2006 Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc.

#19). Plaintiffs seek to add a claim for negligent training and supervision which, it is

contended, first came to counsel's attention during May 10, 2006 depositions. Defendants

object to the Motion on the basis that it is untimely. Indeed, the Case Management Order

prescribed a March 12, 2006 deadline for motions for leave to amend.1

 Plaintiffs' Motion

missed this deadline and the Court must consider whether it is fair to grant leave in these

circumstances. The Court is inclined to follow its own admonition to the parties set forth in

the Case Management Order: "The Deadlines Are Real. The parties are advised that the Court

intends to enforce the deadlines set forth in this Order, and should plan their litigation activities

accordingly." (emphasis in original).

Requiring all parties to comply with established case management deadlines provides for

a fairer litigation as all parties know what is permitted and what is not permitted. Allowing

Case 3:05-cv-02655-DKD Document 24 Filed 06/28/06 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 -

leave from such deadlines disrupts this level playing field of fairness and discourages future

compliance with such deadlines. Against this backdrop, the Court should necessarily consider

whether there is some development so unique that diligent counsel could not have complied

with the Case Management Order. Here no reason is offered for not developing the new claim

sooner or for not conducting the depositions earlier so as to afford time to seek leave to amend

within the deadline to amend. In light of the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED DENYING the Motion to Amend (Doc. #19).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING the Motion to File Pleading Out of Time

(Doc. #18).

DATED this 27th day of June, 2006.

Case 3:05-cv-02655-DKD Document 24 Filed 06/28/06 Page 2 of 2