Desai v. Geico Casualty Company, 1:19-cv-02327

Plaintiff Milind Desai’s 2014 Audi was totaled; GEICO offered $29,039 using the CCC One valuation system. Plaintiff alleges this undervalued the car by $161 and omitted $12.88 sales tax, $4.50 title fee, and a $250 dealer fee, seeking roughly $430 additional recovery and asserting class claims.
Original complaint included a declaratory-judgment claim under Ohio Admin. Code § 3901-1-54(H)(7) and breach-of-contract claims for license, title, dealer fees, and GEICO’s use of CCC One.
The Court dismissed claims grounded in the Ohio Administrative Code and any private cause of action under § 3901-1-54(H), and dismissed the CCC One-based policy claim. Breach claims for the specific fees otherwise survived.
Case Management Order set the pleading-amendment deadline as December 23, 2019. Plaintiff sought leave to amend on August 28, 2020 — more than eight months after that deadline — proposing to add a sales-tax breach claim plus technical edits and an alternative damages calculation.
Court applied Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard (diligence + prejudice), denied leave to add the sales-tax breach claim for lack of diligence and prejudice to GEICO, and granted leave for the uncontested technical amendments. The Court allowed Plaintiff to file a conforming proposed amendment within 14 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Desai may add a breach-of-contract claim for unpaid sales tax after the scheduling-order deadline	Desai omitted the claim earlier to avoid inconsistent theories relying on the Ohio Admin. Code; after court dismissed the Code-based theory, the sales-tax claim is available and GEICO has had notice since Dec. 2019	Untimely and prejudicial: amendment comes long after deadline, risks new discovery and briefing; plaintiff knew the claim in Sept. 2019 but waited nearly a year	Denied: Plaintiff failed to show good cause (lack of diligence) and amendment would prejudice GEICO
Whether Desai may make technical, corrective, and formatting edits (omit CCC One claims, fix statutory reference, alternative damages calc., clarifications)	These changes are non-substantive or flow from the Court’s prior order and will not prejudice GEICO	GEICO does not oppose these specific technical amendments	Granted: Court allows uncontested technical amendments and sets procedure for filing a proposed amendment

Garza v. Lansing Sch. Dist., 972 F.3d 853 (6th Cir. 2020) (Rule 16(b) good-cause/diligence standard for post-deadline amendments)
Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888 (6th Cir. 2003) (importance of fixed pleadings and scheduling deadlines)
Davis v. Echo Valley Condo. Ass’n, 945 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2019) (stating intent to amend is not equivalent to seeking leave)
Shane v. Bunzl Distrib. USA, Inc., [citation="275 F. App'x 535"] (6th Cir. 2008) (post-scheduling-order amendment requires higher threshold under Rule 16)
Hill v. Banks, [citation="85 F. App'x 432"] (6th Cir. 2003) (good cause required before considering Rule 15(a) amendment)