UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Roger Wright, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No.: 1:06 cv 647-WKW

§

Pemco World Air Services, Inc. §

§

Defendant. §

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO

 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Roger Wright, and hereby responds to Defendant’s Opposition 

to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. 

The Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint was filed because it is necessary to 

add and to dismiss certain claims contained in the Complaint. Based on evidence revealed in 

September 2007, more than a year after the Uniform Scheduling Order was entered, Plaintiff seeks to 

add a count for retaliation under the ADEA. On September 24, 2007, as part of Defendant’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment, the Defendant provided a Declaration of Dennis Johnson which states that 

Defendant chose not to rehire the Plaintiff after the Defendant became informed of the Plaintiff’s 

opposition to the Defendant’s violations of the FMLA and ADEA. 

The amendment of pleadings with regard to Scheduling Orders has been discussed by the 

courts: “Unbending adherence to the strictures of Rule 16 would, however, frustrate another broad 

policy of the Federal Rules favoring liberality of amendment. This policy is principally embodied in 

Rule 15, which deals with amendments to the pleadings. It is unlikely that the pretrial order under 

Rule 16 was intended to make the pleadings, and therefore Rule 15, obsolete. [Citations omitted]. 

Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 35 Filed 11/19/2007 Page 1 of 3
Even though the parties have the advantage of discovery before the pretrial conference, events not 

anticipated at the pretrial stage may often occur at the trial. [Citations omitted]. And attorneys 

would be reluctant to enter agreements at the pretrial conference if later amendments were strictly 

forbidden.” Wallin v. Fuller, 476 F.2d 1204, 1209 (5th Cir. 1973).

Rule 15(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., states that a court “should freely give leave when justice so 

requires.” If permission is given by the court, amendments may be made at any time, irrespective of 

the Scheduling Order. The deadlines and strictures given by the Scheduling Order do not outweigh 

the tradition of liberality given in regard to the amendment of pleadings, and there is no precedent 

for such. 

The Plaintiff states that justice requires the allowance of the amendment so that all claims 

relating to the subject matter of this lawsuit may be resolved at one time. The additional claim is in 

response to newly-discovered evidence, and no party shall be prejudiced by the allowance of this 

amendment to Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Respectfully submitted,

_s/ Elizabeth B. Glasgow_____

Elizabeth B. Glasgow

ASB-8348- S58E

Attorney for Plaintiff

P.O. Box 2228

Dothan, Alabama 36302

(334) 793-2424

F. (334) 793-6624

eglasgow@fphw-law.com

Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 35 Filed 11/19/2007 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 19, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the 

following: 

John Holmes, Esq. 

Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C.

1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 2400

Birmingham, AL 35203

__s/ Elizabeth B. Glasgow_____

Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 35 Filed 11/19/2007 Page 3 of 3