Premier Comp Solutions LLC v. UPMC
970 F.3d 316
| 3rd Cir. | 2020Background
- Premier filed antitrust and state unfair competition claims against UPMC and MCMC; the District Court set a pleading-amendment deadline in a Case Management Order (initially June 22, 2016, later extended to November 13, 2016).
- Premier did not move to amend by the November 13, 2016 deadline. On March 7, 2017, after a deposition, Premier sought leave to file a second amended complaint adding York Risk Management Group and a new antitrust count.
- Premier’s motion relied solely on Rule 15(a)’s liberal leave-to-amend standard and did not address Rule 16(b)(4)’s good-cause requirement until its reply brief.
- UPMC argued Rule 16(b)(4) applied and that Premier failed to show diligence, a central factor for good cause. Premier conceded Rule 16 applied in reply and argued diligence for the first time there.
- The District Court denied the motion for amendment because Premier failed to establish good cause under Rule 16(b)(4) and refused to consider arguments raised for the first time in reply; reconsideration was denied, and Premier appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 16(b)(4) apply when a motion to amend comes after a scheduling-order deadline? | Rule 15(a) should control; courts should ‘‘freely give’’ leave to amend. | Rule 16(b)(4) governs amendments after a scheduling-order deadline; good cause required first. | Rule 16(b)(4) applies; party must show good cause before Rule 15(a) is considered. |
| Does showing "good cause" under Rule 16(b)(4) require diligence by the movant? | (Forfeited below) Argued that good cause does not necessarily require showing diligence. | Good cause depends in part on the plaintiff’s diligence in meeting deadlines. | Good cause includes diligence as a relevant consideration; established Third Circuit precedent supports this. |
| Can a district court consider good-cause arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief? | Reply brief sufficed to show diligence and good cause. | Arguments first raised in reply are forfeited and may be disregarded. | District Court did not abuse discretion in refusing to consider arguments first made in reply; Premier forfeited the argument. |
Key Cases Cited
- Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 614 F.3d 57 (3d Cir. 2010) (diligence is relevant to Rule 16(b)(4) good-cause inquiry)
- Eastern Minerals & Chemicals Co. v. Mahan, 225 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2000) (good-cause inquiry focuses on diligence in meeting scheduling-order deadlines)
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (scheduling-order deadlines may be modified only for good cause)
- In Re: J & S Props., LLC, 872 F.3d 138 (3d Cir. 2017) (issues not raised in the district court are forfeited on appeal)
- Gorsuch, Ltd., B.C. v. Wells Fargo Nat’l Bank Ass’n, 771 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2014) (sister-circuit agreement that Rule 16(b)(4) governs post-deadline amendments)