Opinion
CASE NO. 06-22795-CIV-O'SULLIVAN.
December 21, 2007
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on GMACM's Motion to Amend Answer (DE# 52, 12/11/07), Plaintiff Virginia McLean's Motion to File First Amended Complaint (DE# 53, 12/12/07), the plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Deadline to File Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (DE# 56, 12/12/07) and Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Deem Moot GMAC's Motion to Amend Answer to Withdraw Request for Jury Trial (DE# 58, 12/18/07). Having reviewed the applicable filings and the law, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Deadline to File Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (DE# 56, 12/12/07) is GRANTED.
Pursuant to the Court's Order, the deadline to amend pleadings was December 11, 2007. See Order Setting Pretrial Conference and Trial Date (DE# 37, 10/5/07). The plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint was filed one day late. The defendant argues that the instant motion should be denied because the plaintiffs have not shown excusable neglect. See GMACM's Response to Plaintiffs' Motions Seeking Leave to Amend Their Pleadings (DE# 61, 12/20/07). The Court finds that the proper standard in determining whether to allow an untimely amendment is good cause. Rule 16(b) states that "[a] schedule shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the district judge or, when authorized by local rule, by a magistrate judge." Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) (emphasis added). See Smith v. School Bd. of Orange County, 487 F.3d 1361, 1367 (11th Cir. 2007) (noting that "[movant] still had to comply with Rule 16(b)'s good cause requirement because he filed his motion to amend . . . after the court's deadline for such motions").
Here, the plaintiffs have shown good cause for their late filing. In their motion, the plaintiffs explain that the reason for their late filing was their mistaken reliance on the night box filing procedure in Administrative Order 95-29. See Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Deadline to File Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (DE# 56, 12/12/07). Even assuming that excusable neglect is the proper standard, as advocated by the defendant, the Court finds that the plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their complaint under the circumstances of this case. The Court finds that the plaintiffs have shown both good cause and excusable neglect and may amend their complaint. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Virginia McLean's Motion to File First Amended Complaint (DE# 53, 12/12/07) is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that GMACM's Motion to Amend Answer (DE# 52, 12/11/07) is DENIED as moot. The defendant has omitted its demand for a jury trial in its answer to the amended complaint. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Deem Moot GMAC's Motion to Amend Answer to Withdraw Request for Jury Trial (DE# 58, 12/18/07) is GRANTED.
DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers, at Miami, Florida.