Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;3:11-cv-50024_de93> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;3:11-cv-50024_de93 RegisterActionDate "2013-07-01" @default.
- ilnd;;3:11-cv-50024_de93 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Iain D. Johnston: Plaintiff 54BE9AD has filed what he entitled "Supplement to Amend Complaint" 85 . In it, he appears to seek leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add allegations to those of his First Amended Complaint. Defendant BB300DB has filed a Motion to Strike 54BE9AD "Supplement to Amend Complaint." The Court construes Plaintiffs Supplement to Amend Complaint as a Motion for Leave to File Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint. Defendants Motion to Strike is construed as a Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend is denied for two reasons. First, Plaintiff did not present his request as a motion, and did not notice it up for presentment as required under Local Rule 5.3(b). Thus, under Local Rule 78.2, the request is subject to being stricken. Second, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint after the deadline set out in the Courts case management order has passed. Amended pleadings were due by 5/31/2012. Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave to Amend on 5/28/2013, nearly one year after the deadline to amend pleadings had passed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that in cases where the time for amendment as a matter of course has passed, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing partys consent or the courts leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, because the deadline for amending the pleadings passed nearly a year ago, 54BE9AD must first show good cause to modify the case management order before the general standard of Rule 15(a)(2) will apply. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Alioto v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 719 (7th Cir. 2011). The good cause standard of Rule 16(b)(4) focuses on the diligence of the party seeking amendment. Alioto, 651 F.3d at 720. 54BE9AD does not explain why he delayed to propose his new claims, and as a result has failed to meet his burden of showing diligence. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs Request for Leave to Amend is denied. Consequently, Defendants Motion to Strike is denied as moot. (yxp, ) (Entered: 07/02/2013)" @default.
- ilnd;;3:11-cv-50024_de93 AdministrativeID "94" @default.
- ilnd;;3:11-cv-50024_de93 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;3:11-cv-50024_de84 @default.