United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Uniq Branch Office Mexico, S.A. de 

C.V., and Jacobo Helfon Daniel, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

Steel Media Group, LLC, and others, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 22-23876-Civ-Scola

Order

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a 

third amended complaint. (Mot., ECF No. 70.) Defendants Steel Media Group, 

LLC, Fernando Rodriguez Mejia, and Gisela Coloma have responded in 

opposition. (Resp., ECF No. 74.) The Plaintiffs have replied in support of their 

motion. (Reply, ECF No. 76.) After careful consideration of the briefing, the

record, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ motion. 

(ECF No. 70.)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a party seeking to 

amend its complaint more than twenty-one days after the defendant has served a 

responsive pleading or a motion to dismiss may do so only with the opposing 

party’s written consent or the court’s leave. Leave shall be freely given when 

justice so requires. Rule 15(a) reflects a policy of “liberally permitting 

amendments” and absent a “substantial reason to deny leave to amend” a 

plaintiff’s request should be granted. Espey v. Wainwright, 734 F.2d 748, 750 

(11th Cir. 1984). “However, where a party's motion to amend is filed after the 

deadline for such motions, as delineated in the court's scheduling order, the party 

must show good cause why leave to amend the complaint should be granted.” 

Smith v. Sch. Bd. Of Orange Ctny., 487 F.3d 1361, 1366 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). “[G]ood cause exists when evidence supporting the proposed 

amendment would not have been discovered in the exercise of reasonable 

diligence until after the amendment deadline had passed.” Ameritox, Ltd. v. Aegis 

Servs. Corp., No. 07-80498-CIV, 2008 WL 2705435, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 9, 2008)

(Marra, J.), modified on reconsideration, No. 07-80498-CIV, 2009 WL 10668614 

(S.D. Fla. May 13, 2009). In determining whether good cause exists, the Court 

must look at whether “(1) there has been undue delay or bad faith; (2) allowing an 

amendment would cause undue prejudice to the opposing party; [and] (3) an 

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

2001).

Case 1:22-cv-23876-RNS Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2023 Page 1 of 2
The Plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint in order to bring claims 

against a new defendant based on information obtained in discovery from other 

Defendants that have since been dismissed from this matter. (Mot. ¶¶ 6-9.) The 

Plaintiffs also seek to amend their operative complaint in response to Defendant 

Gisela Coloma’s motion to dismiss. (Id. ¶ 7.) The Defendants argue that the 

Plaintiffs have not been diligent in seeking leave to amend and they should have 

been aware of the prospective defendant because she is Defendant Rodriguez’s 

wife. (Resp. at 5-8.) The Defendants do not argue that they would be prejudiced 

by amendment or that amendment would be futile. (Id.) 

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have acted with diligence in seeking leave 

to amend and therefore have good cause to file a third amended complaint. The 

Plaintiffs moved to amend less than a month after receiving discovery materials 

from now-dismissed Defendants Match Hospitality, WLL and Match Hospitality 

AG. (Reply at 5-6.) And, as the Plaintiffs note, the currently present Defendants 

did not appear in this action until after the deadline to amend the pleadings had 

passed. (Id. at 3-5.) The Plaintiffs did act with reasonable diligence in seeking 

amendment, in light of the procedural background in this matter. Smith, 487 F.3d 

at 1366. Nor should the Plaintiffs have necessarily expected that Defendant

Rodriguez’s wife should be named as a defendant prior to receiving discovery 

materials indicating her possible involvement in this matter; in fact, the course 

the Defendants urge would require the Plaintiffs to have abandoned their duty

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 to diligently investigate their claims and 

ensure their claims had factual support prior to filing. 

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 70.) Consistent with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and Local Rule 15.1, the Plaintiffs must 

separately file their third amended complaint, as submitted as an exhibit to the 

motion (ECF No. 70-1), no later than June 20, 2023.

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on June 15, 2023.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-23876-RNS Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2023 Page 2 of 2