Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02460/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02460-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kathy Grismore,

Plaintiff,

v.

Capital One F.S.B., Capital One Services,

Inc., Capital One Bank,

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2460-PHX-SMM

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Kathy Grismore’s Motion for Leave to File a

Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 65). Defendants contend, and this Court agrees, that

despite the liberal interpretation of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff

has failed to establish that she acted diligently to amend her Complaint or that good cause

exists to justify granting leave to Plaintiff to amend her Complaint this late in the litigation

stage. 

More specifically, Plaintiff fails to provide explanation as to why the new allegations,

facts and single claim could not have been raised in the original complaint, her first amended

complaint, or closer to the commencement of discovery-thereby avoiding undue delay and

prejudice to Defendants. Plaintiff’s proposed amendment will delay proceedings, as

discovery is scheduled to cease on February 8, 2008; yet with an amended complaint,

Defendants will need additional time to conduct discovery relevant to the new facts,

Case 2:05-cv-02460-SMM Document 70 Filed 11/26/07 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

 1The new claim is that Defendants violated § 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA by

“knowingly or should have known or consciously avoided knowing that information

reported to Equifax in August of 2006 was false and by failing to properly investigate

after notice of dispute.” (Doc. 66)

 2

The Court notes that in its Order of March 13, 2007, (Doc. 43) Plaintiff was

advised that if she wished to amend any of the counts included in her First Amended

Complaint of which the Court Dismissed without prejudice, she had until March 26, 2007

to do so. Despite this, and despite the availability of the information at the time, Plaintiff

made no attempt at that point to amend her Complaint for any reason. 

- 2 -

allegations, and claim1 included therein. Moreover, Defendants will be susceptible to

substantial additional litigation expenses with filing an additional Answer to the proposed

Second Amended Complaint and conducting additional discovery. Plaintiff has had more

than two years since the commencement of this trial to establish her claims, and the Court

finds that some of the information Plaintiff seeks to include at this point was available at least

as early as August 2006, however the majority of the new information was available at the

time she drafted her earlier complaints, and thus the Complaint should have been amended

at an earlier date.2

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend her

Complaint (Doc. 65).

DATED this 26th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02460-SMM Document 70 Filed 11/26/07 Page 2 of 2