Alfonza McKeever v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-15875
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-00850-WSD
ALFONZA MCKEEVER,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP INC.,
d.b.a. Liberty Mutual Insurance,
GEICO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(August 16, 2012)
Before CARNES, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 11-15875 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

PER CURIAM:
Alfonza McKeever, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of
his motion for leave to amend his amended complaint against Liberty Mutual
Group, Inc. (Liberty Mutual). McKeever filed an amended complaint in state
court alleging defamation and slander against Liberty Mutual and GEICO
Insurance Agency, Inc. (GEICO). After the case was removed to federal court, the
district court entered a scheduling order adopting May 15, 2011, as the deadline
for amendments to pleadings. On June 16, 2011, Liberty Mutual and GEICO1
moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. McKeever’s
response, filed on June 30, 2011, conceded that his claims were time-barred, but
also moved for leave to amend the amended complaint to add a claim for
malicious prosecution against Liberty Mutual. The district court denied
McKeever’s motion because he did not demonstrate “good cause” for failing to
comply with the scheduling order’s deadline for amendments and, alternatively,
because McKeever’s proposed amendment would have been futile. We affirm.
We review the denial of a motion for leave to amend a complaint for abuse
of discretion. Covenant Christian Ministries, Inc. v. City of Marietta, 654 F.3d
The parties proposed the May 15 deadline in their joint preliminary report and1
discovery plan.
2
Case: 11-15875 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

1231, 1239 (11th Cir. 2011). “A plaintiff seeking leave to amend its complaint
after the deadline designated in a scheduling order must demonstrate ‘good cause’
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).” S. Grouts & Mortars, Inc. v. 3M Co., 575 F.3d 1235,
1241 (11th Cir. 2009). Here, McKeever moved for leave to amend his amended
complaint on June 30, 2011, over six weeks after the May 15, 2011 deadline
adopted by the district court’s scheduling order. McKeever’s counseled motion
for leave to amend, however, did not even attempt to demonstrate “good cause”
for his failure to comply with the scheduling order. Without any explanation,
McKeever simply stated that there was no “undue delay.”
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McKeever’s
belated motion for leave to amend his amended complaint because McKeever did
not demonstrate “good cause” for his failure to comply with the scheduling order.
See id. at 1243 (upholding district court’s denial of motion to amend where the
plaintiff failed “to show good cause why it did not amend its complaint before the
amendment deadline imposed in the scheduling order or during extensions of that
deadline”); see also Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir.
1998). Because we affirm the district court’s denial of McKeever’s motion for
leave to amend on this ground, we need not consider whether McKeever’s
proposed amendment would have been futile.
3
Case: 11-15875 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

AFFIRMED.
4
Case: 11-15875 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --