Background
Derek Arredondo sued the City of San Marcos, Hays County, several officials, and unidentified officers. After the case was removed to federal court, the parties proposed—and the district court adopted—a scheduling order giving Arredondo nearly a year to amend his pleadings. He did not request amendment by the June 2023 deadline and apparently conducted no discovery.
Arredondo first requested leave to amend conditionally in a May 2024 summary-judgment opposition, eleven months after the amendment deadline and two months after discovery closed. He filed a formal motion in October 2024, after the district court had granted partial summary judgment against him. The court denied amendment, ultimately entered judgment for the defendants, and also set aside entries of default against Bob Klett and Bert Lumbreras. Arredondo appealed those rulings and other adverse judgments.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Because Arredondo sought amendment after the scheduling-order deadline, he had to demonstrate good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). The district court acted within its discretion in finding no good cause: Arredondo substantially delayed, did not specifically identify the allegedly new body-camera evidence or explain why it was unavailable during discovery, and did not show how amendment could overcome the evidentiary deficiencies exposed at summary judgment.
The court also found no plain error in setting aside the defaults against Klett and Lumbreras. Arredondo had not objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, which correctly considered whether the defaults were willful, whether setting them aside would prejudice Arredondo, and whether the defendants had potentially meritorious defenses. The panel rejected Arredondo’s unsupported contention that those defendants had to file responsive pleadings before benefiting from the summary-judgment rulings.
Finally, the court held that Arredondo abandoned his assertion that the district court improperly resolved factual disputes because his opening brief did not identify specific supporting evidence. His remaining arguments likewise were insufficiently briefed.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking to amend after a scheduling-order deadline must show good cause under Rule 16(b), including diligence in attempting to meet the deadline.
- A late reference to newly discovered evidence is insufficient without identifying the evidence and explaining why it could not have been obtained earlier.
- Failure to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation can limit appellate review to plain error, while inadequately briefed appellate arguments may be treated as abandoned.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the procedural difficulty of revising pleadings after discovery has closed and summary judgment has been granted. Litigants must explain both their delay and how the proposed amendment could materially affect the case at its existing evidentiary stage.
It also reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s preference for resolving cases on the merits rather than by default and highlights the importance of timely objections and evidence-specific briefing to preserve issues for appeal.