United States District Court, W.D. New York
August 16, 2005.
DOUGLAS SENGILLO, Plaintiff,
VALEO ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, INC., VALEO, S.A., RETIREMENT ACCELERATION PROGRAM, PENSION PLAN FOR VALEO ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, INC., BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY IUE/CWA LOCAL 509 and DENNIS CLARK, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: DAVID LARIMER, Chief Judge, District
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Douglas Sengillo ("Sengillo"), moved to amend his
complaint to add a claim for breach of contract. Defendants
oppose the motion for several reasons, but principally because it
was untimely, having been filed approximately one year after the
court-imposed deadline for filing such motions.
The Court had referred certain pretrial matters to United
States Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Magistrate Judge Payson issued a Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. #49) recommending that plaintiff's motion to
amend the complaint be denied. Magistrate Judge Payson issued a
thorough 10-page Report and determined that Sengillo had not shown good cause for filing the late motion. Sengillo did
not appeal from Magistrate Judge Payson's Report and
I have reviewed Magistrate Judge Payson's Report and
Recommendation, the proposed amended complaint and the file, and
I agree with Magistrate Judge Payson's determination, and I adopt
her Report and Recommendation in full. As set forth by Magistrate
Judge Payson, although FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a) provides for liberal
amendment of pleadings, that does not excuse a party from
complying with scheduling orders set by the Court. In this case,
Sengillo has failed to demonstrate good cause for the very tardy
motion to amend the complaint.
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint (Dkt. #32)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.