Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 3, 2023

Nguyen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Judge
Donovan Frank
Docket
0:21-cv-01325
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
4
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Nguyen v. State Farm, Judge Frank overruled Nguyen’s objection and affirmed denial of her late motion to amend the pleadings.

Who this affects

Trinh Thu Nguyen was affected because the court left in place the denial of her late motion to amend or change earlier orders. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company remained the opposing party, and both parties were directed to schedule a status conference.

What happened

In Nguyen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Trinh Thu Nguyen challenged a magistrate judge’s denial of her motion to amend or change earlier orders. The deadline to amend the pleadings was March 21, 2022, but Nguyen filed her motion five months later.

The court held that Nguyen had not shown a sufficient reason for missing the deadline. It found that she was not diligent because she knew by April that she planned to seek an amendment but waited until late August to file the motion. The court also noted that she could have asked the court to require State Farm to provide discovery sooner.

Judge Donovan W. Frank overruled Nguyen’s objection and affirmed Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson’s order in its entirety. The court also directed the parties to contact the magistrate judge to schedule a status conference.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Nguyen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · No. 0:21-cv-01325
Judge
Donovan Frank
Date
Feb. 3, 2023

Background

The matter involved Nguyen’s objection to Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson’s October 7, 2022 order. That order denied Nguyen’s motion to amend, alter, or correct other orders. The district court stated that the factual background was set out in the transcript of the October 7 hearing.

The scheduling order set March 21, 2022 as the deadline to amend the pleadings. Nguyen filed a notice of hearing on her motion to amend on August 22, 2022, five months after that deadline. Magistrate Judge Thorson concluded that Nguyen had not shown good cause for the late request.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the district court could modify or set aside the magistrate judge’s order if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court described this as an extremely deferential standard. A finding is clearly erroneous when, despite supporting evidence, the reviewing court is firmly convinced that a mistake occurred. An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, cases, or procedural rules.

Because Nguyen sought to amend after the scheduling-order deadline, she had to show good cause under Rule 16(b)(4). The court explained that the primary measure of good cause is the movant’s diligence in trying to meet the deadline.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Magistrate Judge Thorson’s order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Nguyen knew by April, at the latest, that she needed to file an amended complaint and had drafted the motion by then. She nevertheless waited until the end of August to submit the motion and proposed amended complaint.

Nguyen argued that she spent the intervening time discussing with her counsel options for moving the case forward. The court found that this did not explain why she failed to notify the court earlier about her plan to seek an amendment. To the extent Nguyen attributed the delay to State Farm’s failure to produce evidence, the court noted that she could have moved to compel discovery. The court also noted that Nguyen had filed a discovery motion in February 2022 but withdrew it before the court ruled on its merits.

Disposition

The court overruled Nguyen’s objection and affirmed Magistrate Judge Thorson’s October 7, 2022 order in its entirety. The affirmed order was the order denying Nguyen’s motion to amend, alter, or correct other orders. The court directed both parties to contact the magistrate judge to schedule a status conference.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.