Laughlin v. Stuart
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-02547
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Laughlin v. Stuart, Judge Leung denied plaintiffs’ request to file a third amended complaint after the amendment deadline.
The three plaintiffs—Malik Laughlin, Kenneth Lewis, and Michael Hari—were not allowed to file the proposed Third Amended Complaint. The defendants and the ongoing case were also affected because the existing complaint and prior orders remained in effect.
What happened
In Laughlin v. Stuart, the three plaintiffs, who represented themselves, asked to file a third amended complaint. They wanted to remove their retaliation claims and describe their requested compensatory damages as nominal damages.
The defendants did not oppose removing the retaliation claims, and one defendant did not respond. The court found that the amendment deadline had passed, discovery was nearly finished, and a dismissal motion had been filed. The plaintiffs gave little explanation for missing the deadline and did not show the required good cause.
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung denied the plaintiffs’ Motion to Enlarge the Time for an Amended Complaint. The court left its prior consistent orders in effect.
The detailed version
- Laughlin v. Stuart · No. 0:19-cv-02547
- Eric Tostrud
- June 14, 2021
Background
The three plaintiffs—Malik Laughlin, Kenneth Lewis, and Michael Hari—represented themselves. They filed a motion asking for more time to file a Third Amended Complaint. Their proposed changes were to remove their retaliation claims and add the word “nominal” where they requested compensatory damages, along with related punctuation, conjunctions, and organizational changes.
The County defendants did not oppose the motion. They agreed that removing the retaliation claims would streamline the case and left the court to decide whether to add “nominal” to the damages request. Defendant Tessa Villegas did not respond to the motion.
Court’s reasoning
The court denied the request because the deadline for amending the pleadings had long passed. The plaintiffs had already been allowed to amend their complaint twice, discovery was nearing its close, and Villegas had filed a motion seeking dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court explained that diligence—meaning a serious effort to meet the deadline—is the main measure of good cause. The plaintiffs provided little or no explanation for why they could not meet the deadline, and the court found that they had not been diligent.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung ordered that the plaintiffs’ Motion to Enlarge the Time for an Amended Complaint was DENIED. The court also ordered that all prior consistent orders remain in effect. The order did not decide the underlying claims or the pending dismissal motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.