Reported / Citable
Background
The plaintiffs brought this action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act against Mijelum, L.L.C. They filed suit on June 27, 2023. The original scheduling order set November 9, 2023, as the deadline to move to amend pleadings; an amended scheduling order later extended that deadline to December 27, 2023.
On February 2, 2024, after the amendment deadline had expired, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a first amended complaint. The proposed amendment would add Luis Mucharraz and Leon Mucharraz as defendants. The motion did not state that plaintiffs’ counsel had conferred with opposing counsel in a good-faith effort to resolve the request.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castañeda denied the motion for leave to amend. A motion seeking to add defendants without disposing of an existing claim, counterclaim, or defense is nondispositive, and Western District of Texas Local Rule 7(g) permits denial of such a motion when the movant does not certify in the motion that counsel conferred and explain why no agreement could be reached.
The court also held that plaintiffs did not meet the threshold requirement for an amendment after the scheduling-order deadline. Under Rule 16(b), plaintiffs first had to show good cause to modify the scheduling order before the court could apply Rule 15(a)’s more liberal amendment standard. Plaintiffs gave no explanation establishing good cause.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking a nondispositive amendment in the Western District of Texas must comply with Local Rule 7(g)’s conference-and-certification requirement.
- After a scheduling order’s amendment deadline, Rule 16(b)’s good-cause standard applies before Rule 15(a).
- A motion that omits both the required conference certification and an explanation of good cause may be denied.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that litigants cannot rely solely on Rule 15(a) when seeking to amend pleadings after a court-imposed deadline. They must first justify modifying the scheduling order and comply with applicable local motion practices.
For FLSA litigants seeking to add individual defendants, the decision illustrates the importance of moving before the amendment deadline or explaining specifically why a late amendment is warranted.