Sosa v. Airprint Systems, Inc.

Citation133 F.3d 1417
Decision Date28 January 1998
Docket NumberNo. 97-2376,97-2376
Parties75 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1665, 72 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,215, 39 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1181, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 980 Marlene SOSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AIRPRINT SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Non-Argument Calendar.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

Frederick C. Morello, Daytona Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert W. Lloyd, Cobb, Cole & Bell, Daytona Beach, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.


Appellant Marlene Sosa sued appellee Airprint Systems, Inc. ("Airprint"), her former employer, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. ("ADEA"), and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla. Stat. Ch. 760 ("FCRA"). The district court dismissed Sosa's case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Airprint had too few employees to be subject to the provisions of the ADEA and FCRA. Sosa does not challenge that ruling, but instead appeals the district court's denial of her motion to amend the complaint to add Viking Industries, Inc. as a second defendant. 1 The motion to amend argued that Viking Industries and Airprint were so closely integrated that they could be considered a single employer and that the two companies together employed more than the jurisdictional minimum number of employees. Noting that Sosa's motion to amend was filed well after the time prescribed by the court's scheduling order, the district court denied the motion as untimely.

District courts are required to "enter a scheduling order that limits the time to ... join other parties and to amend the pleadings ..." Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). Such orders "control the subsequent course of the action unless modified by a subsequent order," Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e), and may be modified only "upon a showing of good cause." Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). This good cause standard precludes modification unless the schedule cannot "be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension." Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee's note; see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.1992) ("If [a] party was not diligent, the [good cause] inquiry should end."). 2

A district court's decision to enforce its pre-trial order will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Santiago v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., 986 F.2d 423, 427 (11th Cir.1993). Because our review of the record reveals that Sosa failed to demonstrate good cause for belatedly amending her complaint, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion and thus affirm the decision below.

The record makes clear that Sosa's failure to comply with the court's scheduling order resulted from a lack of diligence in pursuing her claim. First, despite Sosa's counsel's asserted familiarity and experience with the employee numerosity requirement under the ADEA and FCRA, counsel failed to ascertain the number of Airprint's employees before filing suit and took no steps to acquire this information early in the discovery period. Even in the face of Airprint's assertion in its answer that it "no longer has any employees," R.6-3, counsel waited some four months before propounding written discovery and took no oral depositions until nearly three months after the deadline for amending the complaint. Counsel thus left to chance a critical component of subject matter jurisdiction.

Second, the information supporting the proposed amendment to the complaint was available to Sosa even before she filed suit. Sosa's affidavit, filed with the district court in conjunction with her motion for leave to amend, indicates that she had been aware of the existence of Viking Industries since she began working for Airprint. Also, much of the evidence cited by counsel in support of the motion-e.g., that Airprint and Viking Industries had a common principal address, CEO, President, Secretary, and Treasurer-was public information obtained from the Florida Department of State and was readily accessible to Sosa prior to initiating her action against Airprint.

Third, Airprint informed Sosa via interrogatory responses that it had not employed more than 20 employees during the relevant time period and that it was not an employer within the meaning of the ADEA or the FCRA. Despite receiving this information two weeks prior to the deadline for amending her complaint, Sosa waited approximately six months before taking steps to preserve her ability to assert a viable theory of subject matter jurisdiction.

Sosa's brief on appeal does not address good cause under Rule 16(b), but focuses instead upon the liberal amendment standard set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). If Sosa's motion for leave to amend had been filed within the time prescribed by the scheduling order, Rule 15(a) would be our...

To continue reading

Request your trial
874 cases
  • Havana Docks Corp. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • April 14, 2020
    ...order deadline, Rule 16 is the proper guide for determining whether a party's delay may be excused." Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc. , 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 n.2, 1419 (11th Cir. 1998). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 states that requests for leave to amend after the applicable deadline, as set......
  • George v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • June 2, 2008
    ...F.3d 326, 340 (2d Cir.2000); In re Milk Prods. Antitrust Litig., 195 F.3d 430, 437-38 (8th Cir. 1999); Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (11th Cir.1998) (per curiam); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Godwin, 247 F.R.D. 5......
  • Alexander v. Westbury Union Free Sch. Dist, CV10–0606(WDW).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • November 4, 2011
    ...deadline without a showing of good cause “would render scheduling orders meaningless.” Id. (quoting Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (11th Cir.1998)). Thus, a party seeking to amend a complaint after the Rule 16(b) deadline to do so has lapsed must first establish good cause......
  • Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia County, Fla.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • August 3, 1998
    ...the Turtles' motion for leave to file an amended complaint was the same under either rule 15(a) or 21. Accord Sosa v. Airprint Systems, Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir.1998) (discussing rule 15(a)'s applicability to plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a second defendant out......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • May 4, 2010
    ..., 130 F.Supp.2d 906, 910 (N.D. Ohio 2001), §7:98 Sorchini v. City of Covina, 250 F.3d 706 (9th Cir. 2001), §7:06 Sosa v. Airprint , 133 F.3d 1417 (11th Cir. 1998), §3:09 Souder v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. , 939 F.2d 647, 651 (8th Cir. 1991), §7:110 Sound Video Unlimited, Inc. v. Video......
  • Planning conferences and initial disclosures
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • May 4, 2010 have sufficient time to determine the proper parties and to ascertain all necessary causes of action and defenses. Sosa v. Air-print , 133 F.3d 1417 (11th Cir. 1998). See generally Form 3-06, Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Third Motion to Amend Case Management Order. • The provision......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT