United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Court
Order of Jeanne Hawkins' Tax Transcripts (ECF No. 37) and
Motion to Amend Civil Action to Add Missouri Human Right Acts
Claims under the Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute (ECF No.
38). The Defendants filed Memoranda in opposition to both
motions (ECF Nos. 45, 46). With respect to the motion to
amend, Plaintiff subsequently filed a memorandum supporting
his claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act
("MHRA"), Title VII, and the Equal Pay Act (ECF No.
October 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in federal
court alleging claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et
seq., and in violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C.A.
§§ 201, et seq. According to the
Complaint, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant Central
Credit Services (CCS). (Compl. ¶ I, ECF No. 1) He was
terminated from employment on September 26, 2014.
(Id. at ¶ IV) Plaintiff contends that Defendant
awarded his successor, a female, a higher salary in violation
of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. (Id. at ¶
I) Further, Plaintiff avers that his supervisor created a
hostile work environment in an effort to constructively
discharge Plaintiff. (Id.) In addition, Plaintiff
claims he was subjected to retaliatory harassment for
complaining of compensation discrimination and harassment,
which resulted in his wrongful termination. (Id.
at¶IV) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, including
punitive damages, from Defendants for intentional
compensation discrimination and wrongful termination.
(Id. at ¶ V)
23, 2017, Plaintiff filed the present Motions for Court Order
of Jeanne Hawkins' Tax Transcripts and to Amend Civil
Action to Add Missouri Human Right Acts Claims under the
Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute. In response, Defendants
maintain that they provided Jeanne Hawkins' 2014 and 2015
W-2s, thus mooting the Motion to Compel. Plaintiff has not
opposed Defendants' contention, and thus the Court will
deny Plaintiffs motion as moot.
regard to Plaintiffs Motion to Amend to add state law claims
under the MHRA, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs request is
untimely under the Case Management Order ("CMO") of
February 9, 2017, setting forth the deadline to amend
pleadings as March 2, 2107. (ECF No. 30) The CMO states that
"the following schedule shall apply in this case, and
will be modified only upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances[.]" Defendants contend that Plaintiff has
failed to show the requisite exceptional circumstances in
Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
court should freely grant leave to amend a pleading when
justice so requires. "[T]he court has broad discretion
and will only deny leave to amend in order to avoid undue
delay, where there has been bad faith on the part of the
plaintiff, when amendment would be futile or when amendment
would result in unfair prejudice to the defendants."
Swider v. Hologic, Inc., Civil No. 12-1547
(DSD/AJB), 2012 WL 6015558, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 3, 2012)
(citation omitted). However, "[w]here a party seeks
leave to amend a complaint after the deadline in the
applicable case management order has passed, the [Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure] 16(b) good-cause standard applies
first, then the 'when justice so requires' standard
of Rule 15(a) applies." Jo Ann Howard & Assoc,
P.C. v. Cassity, No. 4:09-CV-01252-ER, 2014 WL 6607077,
at *4 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 19, 2014). "Good cause requires a
change in circumstances, law, or newly discovered
facts." Id. (citing Hartis v. Chicago Title
Ins. Co., 694 F.3d 935, 948 (8th Cir. 2012)).
the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate good
cause such that amendment of the Complaint is not warranted.
Plaintiff filed his motion nearly four months past the
deadline for amendment of pleadings and eight weeks before
the close of discovery. He provides no reasons for the delay
other than he is unable to recover adequate losses under
Title VII. His "response" offers no further
justification for moving to file an amended complaint at this
late juncture, and instead addresses only the allegations and
discovery related to his federal claims. Indeed, Plaintiff
was aware of his MHRA claims in November, 2016, when the
Missouri Commission on Human Rights issued 2 Notices of Right
to Sue. (Defs.' Mem. in Opp'n Ex. D, ECF No. 45-4)
However, Plaintiff did not request to add the MHRA claims
until well-after he received the notices and after the
deadline for amending the complaint had expired.
short, Plaintiff has failed to allege that circumstances have
changed since he commenced this action. See Hartis,
694 F.3d at 948-49 (denying plaintiffs' motion to amend
where plaintiffs were not diligent in seeking to amend their
complaint and where they failed to allege a change in the
law, discovery of new facts, or any other change in
circumstances); Freeman v. Busch, 349 F.3d 582, 589
(8th Cir. 2003) (finding district court properly denied the
motion to amend complaint where it was filed ten months after
the court entered the scheduling order and seven weeks before
the close of discovery and where plaintiff failed to provide
a reason why punitive damages could not have been alleged
earlier). The Court is cognizant of Plaintiff spro
se status. However, "[a] pro se litigant is bound
by the litigation rules as is a lawyer . . . ."
Lindstedt v. City of Granby, 238 F.3d 933, 937 (8th
Cir. 2000); see also Escobar v. Cross, No.
4:12CV00023-JJV, 2013 WL 709113, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 27,
2013) ("Pro se litigants are required to follow the same
rules of procedure, including the local court rules, that
govern other litigants."). Here, Plaintiff participated
in drafting the proposed joint scheduling plan and in the
Rule 16 Conference held before this Court. He was fully aware
of, and consented to, the dates set forth in the CMO.
Plaintiff is responsible as a. pro se litigant for
following all rules and orders, including the CMO. Because
his motion to amend fails to comply with the deadline set
forth in the CMO, and Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
good cause for such failure, the Court will deny Plaintiffs
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion
to Amend Civil Action to Add Missouri Human Right Acts Claims
under the Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute (ECF No. 38) is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Court
Order of Jeanne Hawkins' Tax Transcripts (ECF No. 37) is
DENIED as MOOT.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for
Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion to
Compel Responses to Discovery (ECF No. 47) is
GRANTED to and including July 24, 2017.
Dated this 20th day of July, 2017.
Plaintiff avers that Defendant Radius
Global Solutions, LLC purchased Defendant Integrity Solution
Services, Inc. and changed the name to Central Credit
Services. (Compl. ¶ IV, ECF No. 1) Plaintiff has named