Free Order on Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadlines and to 18 Amend Complaint to Seek Punitive Damages. The motion was filed July 27, 2005, together 19 with a memorandum in support. Defendants' responded in opposition on August 11, 2005, 20 and Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on August 18, 2005. For the reasons set out below, 21 Plaintiffs' motion will be denied. 22 Plaintiffs' filed their complaint just over two years ago. At the Rule 16 Conference, 23 in consultation with counsel and pursuant to their agreements, the initial deadlines in this 24 case were set. The deadline for filing any amendments to the complaint was set, with 25 Plaintiffs' counsel's concurrence, for June 1, 2004. On June 2, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a Motion 26 for Extension of Time until October 1, 2004, to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs' motion was 27 granted and the deadline for filing any motions to amend was extended to October 1, 2004. 28
Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 116 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Marvin Sapiro; Gloria Sapiro, Plaintiffs, vs. Sunstone Hotel Investors, Sunstone Hotel Investors, L.P., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) L.L.C.;) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV03-1555-PHX-SRB ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Since that time, the parties have sought additional extensions to some of the Rule 16 deadlines. On April 5, 2005, the parties stipulated to extend the deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses, which stipulation was granted. On May 16, 2005, the parties stipulated and jointly moved to extend both the expert witness disclosure deadline and the discovery deadline, which joint motion was granted. On May 31, 2005, a motion was filed to extend the deadline for dispositive motions. Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion and the Court extended the dispositive motion deadline as requested. On July 18, 2005, the parties again stipulated to extend the deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses, discovery, and dispositive motions, which stipulation was granted. A review of the docket discloses that extensive discovery has taken place and Plaintiffs do not suggest in their motion that they have not had Sunstone's operating manual since early in the discovery and disclosure in this case. Plaintiffs justify their belated Motion to Amend by the fact that Plaintiffs deposed the San Carlos general manager on June 1, 2005. The discovery in this matter has been substantially completed. Defendants would be required to re-depose witnesses if this amendment were allowed. Clearly Plaintiffs were on notice since early in this litigation of the operations manual and could have earlier determined whether the San Marcos Resort complied with the maintenance procedures set out therein. Plaintiffs' delay until June 1, 2005, to depose the general manager and then their further delay of an additional eight weeks before moving to amend to seek to add a claim for punitive damages, should not subject Defendants to additional and costly discovery. Plaintiffs have simply failed to demonstrate good cause for their failure to discover what they claim to be the information needed for the amendment. Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause for their failure to comply with the Court's scheduling order. The record demonstrates that Plaintiffs have on several occasions sought and obtained extensions including an extension of the motion to amend deadline. Good cause has not been shown for an extension at this late date, ten months after Plaintiffs' requested date for amendment expired. The amendment simply comes to late and the alleged recent discovery

-2Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 116 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of facts that support a claim for punitive damages is based only on the Plaintiffs' delay in deposing an important witness in this case. IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadlines and to Amend Complaint to Seek Punitive Damages. (doc. 109).

DATED this 6th day of September, 2005.

-3Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 116 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 3 of 3