Thomas v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.

Background

Arnold H. Thomas brought this action without a lawyer against JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. He alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act.

The parties’ case-management plan set April 1, 2022, as the deadline for amending pleadings. It stated that amendments after that date would be allowed only upon a showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). Fact discovery later closed, and the court set a schedule for anticipated summary-judgment motions.

Thomas moved to amend the complaint on December 28, 2022, and filed a proposed amended complaint on January 17, 2023. The proposed pleading sought to add two claims: that JPMorgan Chase failed to provide adequate assurance of performance under New York Uniform Commercial Code § 2-609, and that JPMorgan Chase committed “Fraud in the Factum” by not following generally accepted accounting principles. The proposed pleading relied on a January 29, 2010 affidavit from Walker F. Todd, which Thomas said he obtained in December 2022.

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave recommended denying Thomas’s request for permission to amend. She concluded that Rule 16(b)(4)’s good-cause requirement applied because Thomas filed his motion after the court-ordered deadline.

Judge Cave found that Thomas had not shown good cause. The affidavit was dated approximately ten years before Thomas filed this case, and other plaintiffs had relied on it in similar actions, indicating that it was accessible with minimal effort. Judge Cave also found that Thomas had not explained why he was unaware of the basis for the proposed amendments or why he could not have sought them before the deadline.

Judge Cave further determined that allowing the amendment would unfairly prejudice JPMorgan Chase because discovery had closed, the motion came shortly before summary-judgment motions were due, and the amendment could require additional discovery, a different defense strategy, and further delay.

District Court’s Review and Ruling

The district court explained that a magistrate judge’s ruling on a motion to amend is a nondispositive matter reviewed under a highly deferential standard. The district court could modify or set aside the ruling only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Judge Rearden concluded that Judge Cave did not make a clear error or apply the law incorrectly. The court agreed that Thomas had not shown good cause for filing after the amendment deadline and that Judge Cave properly considered the prejudice and delay that amendment would cause at that stage of the case.

The court overruled Thomas’s objection and adopted Judge Cave’s Report and Recommendation in full. The proposed amendment was therefore not allowed, and Thomas’s original complaint remained the operative pleading. The parties were ordered to file, within 10 days of the order, a joint letter proposing a briefing schedule for their anticipated summary-judgment motions.