United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. Plaintiffs,
ALACRAN CONTRACTING, LLC, et al. Defendants. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. Plaintiffs,
ALACRAN CONTRACTING, LLC, et al. Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IAIN D. JOHNSTON, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' motions for leave to file amended complaints in Case Nos. 10 CV 50067 [Dkt. 75] and 11 CV 50126 [Dkt. 126]. For the reasons set forth below, the United States and Sunlee Development's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint in 10 CV 50067 [Dkt. 75] is granted in part and denied in part, while the United States and Alliance Mechanical's motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint in 11 CV 50126 [Dkt. 126] is denied.
On 8/20/2014,  the Plaintiffs filed motions for leave to file amended complaints in Case Nos. 10 CV 50067 [Dkt. 75] and 11 CV 50126 [Dkt. 116, 126]. In the 2010 case, the Plaintiffs request leave to file a third amended complaint to: 1) amend Count I and add Counts IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII to add claims that are currently pending in state court; and 2) add counts II and III against Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company ("Liberty Mutual") for breach of contract and violations of the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/155). In the 2011 case, the Plaintiffs request leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add Counts III and IV against Liberty Mutual for breach of contract and violations of 215 ILCS 5/155.
The Defendants responded to the motions for leave to amend and objected to proposed Counts II and III in the 2010 case and Counts III and IV in the 2011 case against Liberty Mutual for breach of contract and violations of 215 ILCS 5/155. However, in the 2010 case, the Defendants do not object to the Plaintiffs amending Count I and adding Counts IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII as long as the Plaintiffs dismiss those claims in state court. Because the Defendants are unopposed to this amendment, and the Plaintiffs have agreed to the Defendants' request to dismiss those related claims currently pending in the second amended complaint in Winnebago County Case No. 2009 L 454, the Plaintiffs in the 2010 case are granted leave to amend Counts I and add Counts IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII under this Court's supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
The Court now turns to the Plaintiffs' request to add new claims against Liberty Mutual in both the 2010 and 2011 cases. The Plaintiffs seek to add two new counts in each case for breach of contract and violations of 215 ILCS 5/155. These claims arise from Liberty Mutual's alleged refusal to pay the Plaintiffs pursuant to a Payment Bond that Liberty Mutual issued. The Plaintiffs claim that Liberty Mutual failed to properly investigate, evaluate and pay them for work performed as subcontractors, and that Liberty Mutual's refusal and delay to pay was without any reasonable basis.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that after a party has amended its pleadings once as a matter of right, "a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). However, when a scheduling order has been entered and the deadline to file amended pleadings has passed, the party seeking an amendment must first demonstrate good cause under Rule 16(b)(4) before Rule 15(a)'s more liberal standard for amendment applies. Alioto v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 719 (7th Cir. 2011). In determining whether good cause exists, the Court primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking to amend. Trustmark Ins. Co. v. Gen. & Cologne Life Re of Am., 424 F.3d 542, 553 (7th Cir. 2005). It is within the sound discretion of the District Court to grant or deny leave to amend. See id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) (the District Court should not modify or set aside a Magistrate Judge's ruling on a non-dispositive motion unless the factual findings are clearly erroneous or the ruling is contrary to law). The Court will address the application of each rule in turn.
I. Rule 16 - Good Cause
In this case, the deadline for filing an amended pleading in both cases was 5/1/2013 [Dkt. 54, 89], and the Plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend were filed on 8/20/2014 [Dkt. 75, 116]. By filing these motions more than one year past the deadline, Rule 16(b)(4) governs.
Under Rule 16(b)(4), the Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause to alter the 5/1/2013 deadline to amend pleadings. As stated above, the focus of Rule 16's "good cause" consideration is the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.
The Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing good cause under Rule 16. See Trustmark, 424 F.3d at 553 (movant bears the burden of showing good cause). In asserting good cause, the Plaintiffs correctly note that these cases have a complicated procedural history. The Court agrees with that initial premise. Indeed, this Court has expended a considerable amount of time attempting to unravel the mysteries of these aged cases. The Plaintiffs' argument then builds from that premise, and asserts that the parties' continued modifications of deadlines (including discovery deadlines) resulted in confusion and uncertainty as to the cut-off date for amended pleadings. The Plaintiffs assert that they were unaware that the continued extension of deadlines did not include an extension of the deadline to file amended pleadings. The Court parts company with the Plaintiffs at this juncture of the syllogism. For sure, discovery dates were extended. Likewise, dates to amend pleadings were extended. However, the Court's orders explicitly provide that the date to file amended pleadings was 5/1/2013. Dkts. 54, 89. Indeed, in these specific orders, the Court segregated the deadlines and stated the following: "Amended Pleadings due by 5/1/2013. Fact Discovery ordered closed by 5/1/2013." Dkts. 54, 89. Thereafter, the Court extended discovery and dispositive motion deadlines, but not amended pleadings deadlines. Dkts. 56, 58, 61-63, 91, 93, 96, 97, 104.
The Court was unable to find any cases supporting the proposition that confusion as to a cut-off date establishes good cause under Rule 16. The Plaintiffs' reliance on Cordance Corp. v. Amazon.com, 255 F.R.D. 366 (D. Del. 2009) is misplaced. The movant in that case asserted that it could not amend the pleadings any earlier because it needed discovery to meet the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9. Id. at 374. Moreover, to the extent that the Cordance decision stands for the proposition that good cause can be established because of repeated modifications of the case management order, the Court declines to follow that decision. Establishing "good cause" because of repeated failures to meet deadlines turn the entire concept on its head. Again, the touchstone of "good cause" is diligence. Repeatedly missing deadlines is the antithesis of diligence.
The parties were given multiple opportunities to amend their pleadings and assert the new claims and defenses before the deadline. Rule 16 is designed to ensure that "at some point both the parties and the pleadings will be fixed." Rule 16, 1983 advisory committee's notes; see also Johnson v. Methodist Med. Ctr. of Ill., 10 F.3d 1300, 1304 (7th Cir. 1993) (there must be a point at which a plaintiff makes a commitment to the theory of its case). Deadlines are important. Spears v. City of Indianapolis, 74 F.3d 153, 157-58 (7th Cir. 1996). "A good judge sets deadlines, and the judge has a right to assume that deadlines will be honored. The flow of cases through a busy district court is aided, not hindered, by adherence to deadlines." Id. at 157.
Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing good cause under Rule 16, the motions are denied to the extent they seek to add claims against Liberty Mutual for breach of ...