Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. Maverick Cutting And Breaking LLC

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

June 15, 2018

MCI Communications Services, Inc. and MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
Maverick Cutting and Breaking LLC, Defendant.

          Seth J.S. Leventhal, Esq., Leventhal PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Plaintiffs.

          Rachel B. Beauchamp, Esq., Cousineau, Van Bergen, McNee & Malone, PA, Minnetonka, Minnesota, for Defendant.

          ORDER

          STEVEN E. RAU, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs MCI Communications Services, Inc. and MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC's (collectively, “MCI”) Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to File Amended Complaint and Add a Party Based on Newly Discovered Evidence (“Motion to Amend”) [Doc. No. 23]. This matter has been referred for the resolution of pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.1. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On April 14, 2015, Defendant Maverick Cutting and Breaking LLC (“Maverick”) severed several fiber-optic cables belonging to MCI as part of a construction project. See (Compl.) [Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 14, 16]. The day after the incident, MCI representatives participated in a meeting with Carl Bolander & Sons LLC (“Bolander”), the subcontractor that hired Maverick, and other entities. (Minutes, Ex. D, Attached to Aff. of Rachel Beauchamp in Opp'n to Mot. to Amend) [Doc. No. 30-1 at 10-13]; see also (Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Amend, “Mem. in Supp.”) [Doc. No. 25 at 2] (stating that at the time of this incident, “Maverick was working as a subcontractor for Bolander”). Maverick did not participate in the meeting.

         MCI initiated this lawsuit alleging that Maverick is responsible for the damage to its cables under the legal theories of trespass, negligence, and statutory liability. (Compl. ¶¶ 12-26). Following a scheduling conference, the Court issued the Pretrial Scheduling Order setting November 3, 2017, as the last day for the parties to file motions to amend the pleadings to add claims or parties.[1] [Doc. No. 16 at 1].

         During the course of discovery in June 2017, MCI sought documents including contracts relating to Maverick's work on the construction project from the City of St. Paul (the “City”), Kraemer North America, LLC (“Kraemer”), and Bolander.[2] (Proszek Decl. ¶¶ 5-6). When these three entities responded to the requests during the months of June through August 2017, none of them produced contracts. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 11-12). On March 22, 2018, however, Kraemer produced a contract between itself and the City (the “Kraemer Contract”) and a contract between itself and Bolander (the “Bolander Contract”) during Kraemer's corporate deposition. (Id. ¶ 15).

         MCI filed its Motion to Amend on April 26, 2018, arguing that the recently produced contracts are new evidence that establish good cause for it to move to amend its complaint nearly six months after the deadline established in the Pretrial Scheduling Order. See (Mem. in Supp.). Specifically, MCI's proposed amended complaint adds Bolander as a party, adds a claim for breach of contract against Maverick and Bolander based on MCI's status as an intended beneficiary of both the Kraemer and Bolander Contracts, and adds a claim for negligence against Bolander. (Proposed Am. Compl., Ex. 9, Attached to Proszek Decl.) [Doc. No. 26-9 at 1, 10-12]. The Court heard oral argument on June 13, 2018, and the matter is now ripe for adjudication. (Minute Entry Dated June 13, 2018) [Doc. No. 31].

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides that a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Good cause is an exacting standard that focuses on “the diligence with which the moving party attempted to comply with the scheduling order's deadlines and not on the prejudice to the non-moving party.” Target Corp. v. LCH Pavement Consultants, LLC, 960 F.Supp.2d 999, 1006 (D. Minn. 2013) (Keyes, Mag. J.) (citation omitted); see also Morrison Enters., LLC v. Dravo Corp., 638 F.3d 594, 610 (8th Cir. 2011).

         B. Analysis

         MCI has not established good cause. Scheduling orders “control litigation by managing the timing, sequence, and closing of pleadings, ” among other deadlines, as part of a court's “obligation to ‘secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.'” Target Corp., 960 F.Supp.2d at 1007 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 1). This Court in particular makes an effort to issue a pretrial scheduling order that is the same or substantially similar to the schedule the parties propose because, at the time of the pretrial scheduling conference, the parties-not the Court-know more about their case and the time it will take to effectively ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.