Opinion ID: 214036
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Motion to Amend the Pretrial Plan

Text: Cranford next argues that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow an amendment to the pretrial order so that she could include 4 Case: 10-60315 Document: 00511435284 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/05/2011 No. 10-60315 additional claims that appeared in her original complaint but were omitted from the pretrial order. The district court’s order reflects that it never ruled on the motion to amend the pretrial plan because Cranford abandoned the motion. Cranford argues she was “forced to abandon” the motion because the district court delayed its ruling until the morning of trial and she “did not want to delay the matter any further.” A district court has the inherent power to manage and control its own docket in order to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. See United States v. Colomb, 419 F.3d 292, 299 (5th Cir. 2005). The court did not offer Cranford a Hobson’s choice—she was under no obligation to abandon her motion. Having chosen to do so, Cranford cannot now complain that the district court did not grant the motion to amend.