FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T Sept. 15, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 11 92 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 0 8- 00 59 4- CV-T-2 6M SS
VALPAK DIRECT MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC., a Del aware co rp or at io n,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us

ROBERT MASC HINO, an i nd iv id ua l,

Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 15 , 20 09 )

Befo re CARNES, WILSON and COX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:I. BACKG ROUND

Valp ak D ir ec t Ma

rk et ing Sy ste m s, In c. (“ Valp ak ”) is a fran ch is or of di rect -m ai l

ad ve rti si ng

. Ro be rt Mas ch in o an d h i s wife Jo se ph in e Mas ch in o were Valp ak

fran ch is ees

. In Feb ru ary 20 0 8 , V a l p a k se nt th e Mas ch in os a no ti ce of de fau lt an d

fo rm al de m an d fo r pa y m en ts pa st du e un de r th e fran ch is e ag reem en t be twee n Valp ak

an d th e Mas ch in os

. W he n th e Mas ch in os fai le d to pa y th e de m an de d m on ie s, Valp ak

t e r mi na te d th e fran ch is e ag reem en t. The n, whe n th e Mas ch in os st il l di d no t p a y, Valp ak su ed th em fo r br each of co nt ract

. The co m pl ai nt was fil ed in t h e U ni te d

St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t, Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Fl or id a, an d in vo k ed th e fed eral co ur t’s

di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on

. The Mas ch in os an swe red th e co m pl ai nt an d pl ead ed as an
affi rm at iv e de fen se th at , pr io r to rece iv in g th e no ti ce of te rm in at i o n f r om Valp ak , th ey ha d m ad e pa y m en ts in ex ces s of th e am ou nt ne ces sa ry to cu re th e de fau lt

. (R.1

-
13 at 1- 4.) The Mas ch in os al so pl ead ed a co un te rcl ai m fo r da m ag es th at th ey al le ge d
Valp ak cau se d by im

pr op erl y te rm in at in g th ei r fran ch is e an d, th eref or e, wro ng fu ll y

pr ev en ti ng a pr ev io us ly-neg ot ia te d s al e o f th ei r bu si ne ss . ( Id

. at 4 -5 .)

In May 20 08 , th e di st r i c t c o u r t en te red a Cas e Man ag em en t an d Sch ed ul in g
Ord er th at fix ed th e la st da te fo r am en dm en t of th e pl ead in gs as Ju ly 11 , 20 08

. At th e

en d of Ju ne 20 08 , Valp ak br ou gh t a m ot io n to di sm is s th e Mas ch in os ’ co un te rcl ai m

pu rs u a n t t o Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 12 (b )(6 ). The Mas ch in os op po se d th e

2m ot io n. On Ju ly 17 , 20 08 , th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Valp ak ’s m ot io n to di sm is s th e

Mas ch in o s ’ c o un te rcl ai m

. In it s or de r gr an ti ng th e m ot io n to di sm is s, th e di st ric t

co ur t fou nd th at , acco rd in g t o t he fact s al le ge d i n t he pl ead in gs , th e Mas ch in os ha d

no t cu red th ei r de fau lt in a ti m el y m an ne r an d, th eref or e, Valp ak ha d no t im

pr op erl y

te rm in at ed th e fra nc hi se ag reem en t. (R.1 -2 2.)

In th e th ird week of Ju ly 20 08 , th e Mas ch in os were in vo lv ed in a car acci de nt

.
Mrs

. Mas ch in o di ed as a res ul t of he r in juri es fro m th at acci de nt

. Mr. Mas ch in o fil ed

a Su gg es ti on of Deat h, an d no pa rty was su bs ti tu te d fo r Mrs

. Mas ch in o. The di st ric t

co ur t t erm in at ed Mrs . Mas ch in o’s p art ic ip at io n a s a p art y in th e la wsu it

. 1

On Feb ru ary 25 , 20 09 , two da y s be fo re th e di sc ov ery pe rio d was se t to ex pi re,

Mr. Ma sc hi no fil ed a m ot io n fo r pe rm is si on to fil e an am en de d a ns wer, affi rm at iv e
de fen se s, an d c ou nt ercl ai m . (R .1-3 4; R.E. 4 .) The pro po se d a m en de d p le ad in g s et

fo rth th e affi rm at iv e de fen se s of sa ti sf act io n of th e de bt an d w a i v er an d an ot he r
affi rm at iv e de fen se /c ou nt erc la im fo r br each of th e im pl ie d co ve na nt of go od fai th an d

fai r de al in g. The fact ua l ba si s fo r th e br each of th e co ve na nt of go od fai th an d fai r
de al in g co un te rcl ai m was th e sa m e as th e fact ua l ba si s al le ge d in th e co un te rcl ai m in

th e Ma s c h i n o s ’ or ig in al an swe r (th e sa m e co un te rcl ai m th at was di sm is se d by th e

Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 25(a) (1) require s dismiss al of claims ag ainst dece ased 1 parties f or whom no substituti on is made.

3di st ric t co ur t i n J ul y 20 08 ). On Fe br ua ry 26 , 20 09 , di st ric t cou rt d en ie d t he m ot io n

to am en d, fin di ng th at F e d e r a l Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 16 (b ) req ui red th at Mr.

Mas ch in o m ak e a sh owi ng of go od cau se fo r th e ta rd y am en dm en t an d th at he ha d no t

mad e th at sh owi ng an d co ul d no t m ak e it be cau se “ [a]ll of th e fact s al le ge d in th e

m ot io n co ul d ha ve be en as cer ta in ed wit h th e ex erci se of du e di li ge nc e pr io r to th e
de ad li ne fo r am en di ng pl ead i n gs .” (R.1 -3 5 at 2; R.E. 6 at 2 ( ci ti ng Romer o v.

Dru mmon d C

o. , 55 2 F .3d 13 03 , 13 18 -1 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) .)
Valp ak im m ed ia te ly m ov ed fo r su m mary jud gm en t on it s br each of co nt ract

cl ai m

. Mr. Mas ch in o op po se d th e m ot io n on th e gr ou n d s t h a t : ( 1) Valp ak ha d

br each ed th e co ve na nt of go od fai th an d fair de al in g by te rm in at in g th e Mas ch in os ’

fran ch is e in or de r to pr ev en t th em fro m se ll in g th ei r bu si ne ss , an d (2 ) he was en ti tl ed

to an of fs et of $8 0,0 00 in pr of

it th at Valp ak m is ap pr op ria te d whe n it rece iv ed m on ie s
fro m a m ai li ng th e Mas ch in os pr ep a r e d ju s t be fo re te rm in at io n of th ei r fran ch is e. (R.1 -4 5 at 2.) The di st ric t co ur t g r a n te d Valp ak su m m ary jud gm en t, st at in g in it s

or de r th at Mr. Mas ch in o’s op po si ti on was an at te m pt ed rep ack ag in g of th e cl ai m s he

ha d un su cces sf

ul ly so ug ht to br in g in an am en de d res po ns e to Valp ak ’s co m pl ai nt

. (R.1 -4 6 at 3.) W it h res pe ct to th e $8 0,0 00 of fs et to whi ch Mr. Mas ch in o cl ai m ed to

be e nt it le d, th e co ur t no te d th at Mr. Mas ch in o as se rte d th at affi rm at iv e de fen se fo r
th e fir st ti m e in hi s op po si ti on to Valp ak ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The co ur t

4di d no t ap pl y an $8 0,0 00 of fs et whe n it cal cu la te d da m ag es du e Valp ak on it s br each

of co nt ract cla im . (

Id

. at 3 , 6.)

II . ISSUE S ON APPEAL

Mr. M a s c h i n o ap pe al s th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to am en d an d th e gr an t of

su m m ary jud gm en t to Valp ak

. He arg ue s th at he sh ou ld ha ve be en gr an te d leav e to

am en d hi s pl ead in gs so as t o a s s ert hi s waiv er de fen se , hi s cl ai m fo r br each of th e
im pl ie d c ov en an t of go od fai th an d fa ir d eal in g, an d h is cla im to an $8 0,0 00 off

se t.

And , he arg ue s th at im

pr op er de ni al of h i s m ot io n to am en d m ad e th e gr an t of

su m m ary jud gm en t i na pp ro pr ia te

.

II I. STANDARDS OF REVI EW

W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to di sa ll ow am en dm en t o f a co m pl ai nt

aft er th e de ad li ne es ta bl is h e d i n it s pr et ria l or de r fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. So sa v.
Air pr in t Sy s., In c. , 13 3 F.3 d 14 17 , 14 18 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ) ( qu ot in g Sa nt ia go v. Lyke s

Bro s. St ea msh ip Co

. , 98 6 F.2 d 42 3, 42 7 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 93 )). “ [W] he n a m ot io n to

am en d is fil ed aft er a sc he du li ng or de r de ad li n e , R u l e 1 6 is th e pr op er gu id e fo r
de te rm in in g whe th er a pa rty’ s de la y m ay be ex cu se d.” So sa , 1 33 F.3 d at 14 18 n.2

. (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . That rul e req ui res a sh owi ng of g oo d c au se for m od ifi cat io n o f

th e de ad li ne s in th e sc he du li ng or de r. Se e Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 16 (b )(4 ) (“ A sc he du le m ay
be m od ifi ed on ly for g oo d c au se an d wi th th e jud ge ’s con se nt .”)

5Thi s co ur t rev ie ws a di st ric t co ur t ’s g r a n t of su m m ary jud gm en t by ap pl y in g
th e sa m e le ga l st an da rd s us ed by th e di st ric t co ur t. Se e, e.g

. , Hil bu rn v. Mur at a Elec s.

N. Am., In c. , 18 1 F.3 d 12 20 , 12 25 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 99 ). Su m m a r y ju d g men t is

ap pr op ria te whe re “ ‘the re is no ge nu in e is su e as to an y m at eri al fact an d th e m ov in g

pa rty is en ti tl ed to a jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.’ ” W oo de n v. Bd. of Reg en ts of th e

Uni v. Sy s. of Ga. , 24 7 F.3 d 12 62 , 12 71 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 20 01 ) ( qu ot in g Fed

. R. Ci v. P.

56 (c))

.
IV. DIS CUSSI ON

W e fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e co ur t’s de ni al of Mr. Mas ch in o’s m ot io n

to am en d. Our rev ie w of th e reco rd rev eal s th at Mr. Mas ch in o fai le d to de m on st rat e

go od cau se fo r m ov in g to am en d hi s co mp l ai nt m or e th an se ve n m on th s aft er

am en dm en t wou l d h a v e b e en al lo wed un de r th e co ur t’s sc he du li ng or de r. In th e
di st ric t co ur t, Mr. Mas ch in o bl am ed th e de la y on th e tra ge dy of hi s wife ’s de at h an d

hi s re su lt in g in ab il it y to co m m un ic at e wit h hi s at to rn ey

ab ou t t hi s ca se

. Howev er, 2

wit ho ut di sc ou nt in g th e pr of ou nd effe ct th at sa d ev en t m us t ha ve ha d on Mr.

Mas ch in o, w e fin d th at it do es no t sa ti sf y th e go od cau se st an da rd be cau se th e car
acci de nt th at le d t o M r s

. Mas ch in o’s de at h oc cu rred aft er th e am en dm en t de ad li ne

On appea l, Mr. Maschino also att ri b u t es t h e delay to two surg erie s submitt ed to by his 2 attorney

. He did not prese nt evidenc e of these surg erie s to the district court. There fore , we will not consider this ar g ument.
6ha d p as se d. The fact s un de rlyin g th e pr op os ed am en dm en t were act ua ll y kn own or

co ul d h a v e be en di sc ov ered wit h th e ex erci se of du e di li ge nc e in ad va nc e of th e

am en dm en t de ad li ne

. Mr. Mas ch in o p r es en te d no ev id en ce of go od cau se why an

am en de d p le ad in g c ou ld no t h av e b een fil ed be fo re t ha t d ead li ne pa ss ed

. And , on th e pl ead in gs as t h e y ex is te d at th e ti m e su m m ary jud gm en t was

gr an te d, th ere was no ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact in di sp ut e. The re was no di sp ut e

as to th e ex is te nc e of a va li d co nt ract or th e Ma s c h i n o s ’ f a i l ur e to pa y th e m on ie s

owe d to Valp ak pu rs ua nt to th a t c o n tra ct

. In hi s op po si ti on to th e m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t, Mr. Mas ch in o di d arg ue ab ou t t h e a mo u nt of da m ag es du e Valp ak

. Bu t, as th e di st ric t co ur t reco g n i z e d , he di d so in an un ti m el y at te m pt to

as se rt an affi rm at iv e de fen se of o f f se t ba se d on a cl ai m of m is ap pr op ria ti on

. Se e
BUC In t’l Co rp . v . I

nt ’l Y ac ht Co un ci l Lt d. , 5 17 F.3 d 12 71 , 1 2 7 6

- 7 7 n .5 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 08 ) (“ Acco rd in g to Bl ack ’s Law Dict io na ry , a se to ff is a ‘cou nt erd em an d ag ai ns t

t h e pl ai nt iff

, ari si ng ou t of a tra ns act io n in de pe nd en t of th e pl ai nt iff ’s cl ai m .’ ”)
( qu ot in g Bl ack 's Law Dict io na ry 14 04 (8 th ed

. 20 04 )). As st at ed ab ov e, we fin d no

er r o r i n th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to di sa ll ow th e be la te d as se rti on of ne w c la im s
in th is la wsu it

. Fo r th at reas on , no is su e of m at eri al fact was pr op erl y be fo re th e co ur t

at th e su m

m ary jud gm en t s ta ge . Sum m ary jud gm en t fo r Val pa k was pro pe r.

AFFIR MED.

7