UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-23221-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

LAUREN SASSINE, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

_________________________/ 

ORDER ON MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Laurene Sassine’s Motion to Amend the 

Complaint, ECF No. [27] (“Motion”), filed on January 17, 2023. Defendant Seven for all Mankind, 

LLC filed their Response in Opposition, ECF No. [28], to which Plaintiff did not reply. The Court 

has carefully considered the Motion, the Response, the record in this case and the applicable law, 

and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied. 

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises as a result of alleged employment discrimination on the basis of race, 

national origin, and gender under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. See generally ECF No. [1-

4] (“Complaint”). The case was originally filed in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit 

in and for Miami-Dade County on June 29, 2022. See id. Defendant removed the case to this Court 

on October 4, 2022. ECF No. [1].

On October 24, 2022, the Court entered its Scheduling Order, ECF No. [11], setting a 

deadline of December 23, 2022, for amendment of pleadings. In the Motion, Plaintiff requests that 

the Court grant leave to amend its Complaint to add DG Premium Brands, LLC (“DG”) as a 

Case 1:22-cv-23221-BB Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 1 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-23221-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

defendant, based upon information recently discovered in light of Defendant’s response to a 

discovery request in which Defendant said DG was Plaintiff’s actual employer and that Defendant 

did not employ Plaintiff. Plaintiff states that she “believes Defendant is conducting bad faith 

litigation tactics in not simply filing a motion to dismiss or just calling [Plaintiff’s counsel] to 

explain the business structure of the employer.” ECF No. [27] ¶ 7. Plaintiff seeks to amend her 

Complaint to add the additional defendant DG since Defendant claims DG is the proper party. 

Defendant opposes the request, contending that Plaintiff had been explicitly notified in its 

Answer, ECF No. [5], that Plaintiff was suing the wrong party and otherwise had the relevant 

information before the deadline to amend pleadings. Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot 

establish the necessary good cause to amend now that the deadline to do so has passed.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Generally, Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amendment to 

pleadings. Apart from initial amendments permissible as a matter of course, “a party may amend 

its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(2). “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. A plaintiff should be 

afforded the opportunity to test its claim on the merits as long as the underlying facts or 

circumstances may properly warrant relief. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). However, 

“[a] district court need not ... allow an amendment (1) where there has been undue delay, bad faith, 

dilatory motive, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed; (2) 

where allowing amendment would cause undue prejudice to the opposing party; or (3) where 

amendment would be futile.” Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001). Ultimately, 

“the grant or denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District Court[.]” 

Foman, 371 U.S. at 182.

Case 1:22-cv-23221-BB Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 2 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-23221-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

3

A scheduling order may be modified only “for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). When, as here, a motion to amend is filed after a scheduling order

deadline, Rule 16 is the proper guide for determining whether a party’s delay may be excused. 

Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 n.2 (11th Cir. 1998); see also Smith v. Sch. Bd. of 

Orange Cnty., 487 F.3d 1361, 1366-67 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that “where a party files an 

untimely motion to amend, [we] must first determine whether the party complied with Rule 16(b)’s 

good cause requirement,” before considering whether “justice so requires” allowing amendment). 

Accordingly, when a motion for leave to amend a pleading is filed after the deadline set in a court’s 

scheduling order, the court employs a two-step analysis. Sosa, 133 F.3d. at 1419. First, the movant 

must demonstrate good cause under Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Good 

cause exists when the deadline could not “be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 

extension.” Id. at 1418 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee note). Courts consider three 

factors in assessing diligence: (1) whether the movant failed to ascertain facts prior to filing the 

pleading or failed to acquire information during the discovery period, (2) whether the information 

supporting the proposed amendment was available to the movant, and (3) whether the movant 

delayed in requesting leave to amend even after acquiring the information. See id. at 1419. If the 

movant demonstrates good cause, the court proceeds to determine whether an amendment to the 

pleadings is proper under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. But, if the party 

seeking relief “was not diligent, the [good cause] inquiry should end.” Sosa, 133 F.3d at 1418 

(quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)).

III. DISCUSSION

Upon review, Plaintiff fails to show the good cause necessary to justify leave to amend 

after expiration of the deadline established in the Court’s Scheduling Order.

Case 1:22-cv-23221-BB Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 3 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-23221-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

4

Plaintiff contends that good cause exists to grant leave to amend because she has been 

diligent and only learned of the need to amend because DG was the proper party when she received

sworn testimony from Defendant on January 11, 2023. She argues that Defendant has filed 

confusing pleadings by filing a Counterclaim in which it contends that Plaintiff falsified her time 

records while also saying they did not employ Plaintiff. She also argues that there is no substantial 

reason to deny her leave to amend because the “parties have not conducted any depositions in this 

matter and trial is not scheduled until November 6, 2023.” ECF No. [27] at 4. Plaintiff further 

asserts that Defendant cannot claim prejudice because Defendant has identified the party to be 

added, DG Premium Brands, LLC, as the proper party.

Defendant responds Plaintiff’s counsel had an affirmative obligation to inquire into the 

factual basis of his client’s claims before filing a lawsuit and if she had done so, she would have 

found that Plaintiff’s pay stubs and tax forms were issued by DG. Defendant states that a similar 

action filed close in time to this case by another attorney at Plaintiff’s counsel’s law firm on behalf 

of Plaintiff’s former co-worker named the correct defendant. Defendant also states that three other 

sources of information provided to Plaintiff before the deadline to amend pleadings clearly 

revealed that DG was the proper party as Plaintiff’s employer. They include: (1) a demand letter 

sent on October 7, 2022, demanding that Plaintiff repay DG damages for time theft; (2) 

Defendant’s Answer filed on October 10, 2022, in which it declared that Plaintiff was employed 

by DG, not Defendant; and (3) Defendant’s confirmation in the parties’ Joint Scheduling Report, 

ECF No. [10], that it would seek a dispositive ruling that Defendant was not Plaintiff’s employer.

In Sosa, the Eleventh Circuit considered a similar case in which a district court denied a

plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to add another employer so closely integrated to her 

own that the two together could be considered a single employer. Sosa, 133 F.3d at 1418. In that 

Case 1:22-cv-23221-BB Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 4 of 5
Case No. 22-cv-23221-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

5

case, the court confirmed that the correct standard to be applied is Rule 16(b)’s good cause 

requirement. Id. at 1419. The Court found that “Sosa's attempt to add a defendant outside the time 

frame prescribed by the scheduling order was not supported by good cause” where she had been 

aware that the second employer existed and had a closely integrated relationship with her employer 

since she began working for them. Id.

Similarly, Plaintiff knew that DG issued her paychecks and tax forms, and was on sufficient

notice of Defendant’s position that DG was the proper party based on its Answer to the Complaint. 

The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff had the relevant information prior to the deadline to amend 

pleadings. Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for the Court to modify its scheduling order and 

grant leave to Amend the Complaint.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, ECF No. [27], is 

DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on February 17, 2023.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-23221-BB Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 5 of 5