Whiting IN City of v. Whitney Bailey Cox Magnani LLC, 2:14-cv-00440

The City of Whiting moved to file a third amended complaint more than one year after the Rule 16 deadline to add two defendants: American Structurepoint, Inc. and Superior Construction Co., Inc.
WBCM opposed, arguing the City had sufficient pre-deadline evidence (contractual privity, a 2012 Change Order, April 2013 progress-meeting minutes, and an April 2013 letter from WBCM) to have joined those parties earlier.
The City asserted it needed discovery/new evidence obtained after the deadline to state the new claims and, in reply, invoked Rule 6(b) (excusable neglect) for the first time.
The court applied the Rule 16(b) good-cause standard for post-deadline amendments and analyzed excusable neglect under Rule 6(b) but noted Rule 16 is the specific rule for scheduling-order deadlines.
The court found the City had prior documents that should have prompted earlier action and was not sufficiently diligent, so it denied leave to amend for lack of good cause and excusable neglect.
The court also observed that joinder would destroy complete diversity (ending subject-matter jurisdiction), but did not decide whether to permit joinder/remand because the amendment was denied on timeliness grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether City showed "good cause" under Rule 16(b) to amend after the scheduling deadline	City said new evidence obtained after the deadline enabled the new claims; amendment therefore required	WBCM said City had pre-deadline documents (Change Order, April 2013 letter and meeting minutes) and contractual privity that should have prompted earlier investigation	Denied — City lacked diligence; pre-deadline materials meant no good cause to amend late
Whether Rule 6(b) excusable neglect could justify a post-deadline extension	City argued in reply that excusable neglect warrants an extension under Rule 6(b)	WBCM argued City failed to show excusable neglect and delay would prejudice it	Denied — Court found no excusable neglect; delay and prejudice to WBCM weighed against extension
Whether joinder of Structurepoint and Superior would destroy diversity and require remand	City did not meaningfully contest consequences; primary focus was on permissive joinder	WBCM acknowledged joinder would defeat diversity and lead to remand	Court noted joinder would destroy diversity but did not decide whether to permit joinder/remand because amendment was denied
Prejudice from late joinder and length of delay	City downplayed prejudice, emphasizing merits of adding parties	WBCM asserted prejudice from delay, forum change, and litigation disruption	Court found prejudice to WBCM significant and considered it in excusable-neglect analysis

Tschantz v. McCann, 160 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Ind. 1995) (Rule 16 good-cause standard for post-deadline amendments focuses on diligence)
Trustmark Ins. Co. v. Cgeneral & Cologne Life Re of Am., 424 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2005) (to amend after scheduling-order deadline a plaintiff must show good cause under Rule 16(b))
Murphy v. Eddie Murphy Prods., Inc., 611 F.3d 322 (7th Cir. 2010) (factors for excusable neglect include reason for delay and prejudice to the nonmoving party)
Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2009) (discusses district-court options when joinder of nondiverse parties would destroy subject-matter jurisdiction)