Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Derek Arredondo sued the City of San Marcos, Hays County, several officials, and unidentified officers. The district court partially granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motions and entered other rulings adverse to Arredondo.
Arredondo sought leave to amend after the court-ordered amendment deadline, the close of discovery, and, in his formal motion, after partial summary judgment had been granted. He also challenged the setting aside of defaults entered against defendants Bob Klett and Bert Lumbreras and argued generally that the district court had improperly resolved factual disputes.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because Arredondo failed to show good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). He did not adequately explain his substantial delay, identify the purportedly new body-camera evidence with specificity, show why it could not have been obtained earlier through discovery, or explain how an amendment would overcome the evidentiary deficiencies identified at summary judgment.
The court also found no plain error in setting aside the defaults against Klett and Lumbreras. Because Arredondo did not object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation despite receiving notice of the objection deadline, review was limited to plain error. The magistrate judge had applied the proper factors, finding that the failure to respond was not willful, that Arredondo would not be prejudiced, and that the defendants had potentially meritorious defenses.
Finally, the court treated Arredondo’s argument about improperly resolved factual disputes, along with any remaining arguments, as abandoned because his opening brief did not adequately develop them or identify supporting evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking to amend after a scheduling-order deadline must show good cause, including diligence in attempting to meet the deadline.
- A request to amend made after discovery and summary judgment may be denied when the proposed amendment is not shown to cure the case’s evidentiary deficiencies.
- Failure to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation can limit appellate review to plain error, while inadequately briefed appellate arguments are treated as abandoned.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of complying with scheduling orders and conducting discovery diligently. A vague reference to newly discovered evidence will not ordinarily justify a late amendment without a specific explanation of the evidence, its significance, and why it could not have been obtained earlier.
It also highlights two procedural risks on appeal: failing to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation and failing to support appellate arguments with specific evidence and developed analysis.