United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Lindsay, Magistrate Judge United States District Court.
the Court is a Motion to Amend the Complaint (DN 30) filed by
plaintiff Jemicah Stephens. Defendant Premiere Credit of
North America, LLC filed a response (DN 32), and plaintiff
filed a reply (DN 38). Therefore, the Motion to Amend the
Complaint is ripe for review.
complaint was filed in Jefferson Circuit Court on December
10, 2015. (DN 1-2.) Plaintiff's complaint contains five
counts: (1) violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. 1692, et seq.,
specifically Sections 1692e(2), (8), (10), and (16), Section
1692g(a), and Section 1692f(1); (2) intentional or negligent
infliction of emotional distress; (3) invasion of privacy;
(4) defamation; and (5) money had and received. (DN 1-2.) The
action was removed to this Court on January 4, 2016.
scheduling order was entered in this action on March 15,
2016. (DN 12.) The pleading amendment deadline for plaintiff
set forth in that initial scheduling order was June 6, 2016.
(Id. at 2.)
October 3, 2016, plaintiff filed a Motion to Modify the
Scheduling Order (DN 14). In the Motion to Modify Scheduling
Order, plaintiff requested an extension of his pleading
amendment deadline from June 6, 2016 to October 24, 2016; in
this motion, plaintiff stated that he anticipated
“seeking to amend his complaint to add factual details
and new or revised legal theories based on information
uncovered during the discovery period.” (Id.
October 26, 2016, the undersigned held a telephonic status
conference in this matter. An order arising out of that
telephonic conference denied the Motion to Modify the
Scheduling Order as moot and extended various pretrial
deadlines in this matter; however, the order did not extend
the pleading amendment deadline. (DN 19.) The order set the
discovery deadline as February 10, 2017. (Id.) The
discovery deadline has been extended several times and is
currently April 30, 2017. (DN 29.) The dispositive motion
deadline has been stayed. (DN 42.) On March 29, 2017,
plaintiff filed the Motion to Amend the Complaint.
seeks to amend his complaint in order to (1) add factual
detail; (2) add a new violation of the FDCPA, specifically
Section 1692g(b); and (3) remove Count V. Plaintiff argues
that defendant will not suffer undue prejudice as a result of
these amendments because no trial has been set, discovery has
not been completed, no dispositive motions have been filed,
and the amendment is not futile. Plaintiff asserts that the
proposed amendment simply clarifies facts and legal theories.
opposes the Motion to Amend the Complaint for several
reasons. First, defendant argues that plaintiff must show
“good cause” for amending the complaint because
the pleading amendment deadline in the scheduling order has
passed. Defendant states that plaintiff has not demonstrated
good cause and that permitting plaintiff to amend his
complaint would be prejudicial to it at this stage of the
defendant argues that the proposed amendment is based on
information that plaintiff had when he filed the complaint.
Defendant further argues that none of the factual allegations
added to the proposed amended complaint were referenced in
plaintiff's answers to contention interrogatories.
defendant asserts that discovery has been substantially
completed and it would be prejudiced if the Motion to Amend
the Complaint were granted. As an example, defendant states
that the proposed amended complaint adds multiple references
to Morgan State, and the Motion to Amend the Complaint was
filed the day before the depositions of Morgan State
representatives took place in Baltimore, Maryland. Defendant
also asserts that the Motion to Amend the Complaint was filed
approximately one month before the discovery deadline; the
depositions of plaintiff, plaintiff's mother, and four
Morgan State University witnesses have been taken; and
defendant has completed a draft of its summary judgment
arguments based on the original complaint.
defendant argues that the proposed amended complaint is
futile to the extent that plaintiff attempts to add certain
allegations barred by the ...