Schwartz v. The Hall Insurance Group Inc.
1:23-cv-00374
| S.D. Ohio | Sep 19, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Michael Schwartz sued The Hall Insurance Group Inc. (HIG), claiming he received prohibited telemarketing calls and texts in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and relevant Ohio statutes.
- Plaintiff originally alleged two unlawful calls, but later sought leave to supplement his complaint to allege 22 calls and add two new defendants and new legal theories.
- The initial deadline to amend pleadings was November 30, 2023; fact discovery closed June 29, 2024; dispositive motions were due August 12, 2024.
- Plaintiff filed his motion to supplement the complaint on August 12, 2024, the same day defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and well after the pleading amendment deadline.
- Defendant opposed the motion as untimely and prejudicial, and moved to strike; Plaintiff asserted discovery delays justified his late amendment.
- The magistrate judge denied the motion to supplement and granted the motion to strike, finding Plaintiff lacked diligence and good cause for the late filing and that amendment would prejudice the defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Good cause under Rule 16(b) to modify scheduling order | Discovery delays excused lateness; new evidence obtained late | Plaintiff had information about new allegations, witnesses, and defendants months prior to motion; no good cause shown | No good cause; plaintiff not diligent |
| Prejudice from late amendment | Not addressed directly | Allowing amendment would require reopening discovery, adding defendants, delaying case | Significant prejudice would result, so amendment denied |
| Rule 15(a)/(d) amendment standard | Amending is liberally allowed, including adding after-acquired claims | Delay, prejudice, and lack of diligence defeat amendment right | Motion denied: delay and prejudice weigh against amendment |
| Addition of new defendants and claims | Needed for full relief; information obtained in discovery | Plaintiff knew identities long before motion; unexplained delay | Plaintiff failed to justify delay in naming new parties |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (liberal standard for amending complaints, but delay/prejudice may defeat leave)
- Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888 (good cause under Rule 16(b) requires showing diligence to meet deadlines)
- Duggins v. Steak 'N Shake, Inc., 195 F.3d 828 (allowing amendments after close of discovery can cause significant prejudice)
- Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613 (focus on moving party's diligence and potential prejudice in scheduling order modifications)