Ghani v. ARS Pharmaceuticals

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JUSTIN GHANI,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARS PHARMACEUTICALS,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-2282-JAR-TJJ
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 40).
Plaintiff requests leave to amend his Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 33) to add three new
paragraphs of factual allegations (ECF No. 40-1 at 7). This is Plaintiff’s fifth motion requesting
leave to amend his complaint.1 Defendant filed a response opposing the motion (ECF No. 43) and
Plaintiff has filed a reply (ECF No. 44). As explained below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied as
untimely.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his Employment Discrimination Complaint on May 23,
2025. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on July 25, 2025. Shortly thereafter on August 7, 2025,
Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint (ECF No. 10). The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion
and his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13) was filed on August 22, 2025. Defendant filed another
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) on August 29, 2025. Plaintiff filed a second motion to amend his
complaint (ECF No. 17) on September 9, 2025.
1 See Plaintiff’s prior motions to amend his complaint (ECF Nos. 10, 17, 22, and 27).
Case 2:25-cv-02282-JAR-JBW Document 46 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 5

2
At the September 29, 2025 telephone scheduling conference, Plaintiff advised the Court
that he filed his motion seeking leave to amend his complaint in lieu of filing a response opposing
Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court informed Plaintiff that his motion would not be
considered by the Court as a response in opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and instead
he would need to promptly file a motion that requests leave to file out of time his response to the
motion to dismiss.2 The Court also denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint
based upon its finding his proposed amendment of his complaint would be futile.3 The Court also
entered a Scheduling Order (ECF No. 25) that set a November 21, 2025 deadline for the filing of
any motion to amend the pleadings.
Immediately after the September 29 scheduling conference, Plaintiff filed his third motion
to amend pleadings (ECF No. 22). The Court noted this motion appeared identical to Plaintiff's
earlier-filed motion for leave to amend his complaint that the Court denied as futile at the
scheduling conference. The Court denied Plaintiff’s third motion based on the same futility
grounds it denied his earlier motion.4
On October 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a fourth motion for leave to amend his complaint (ECF
No. 27). Defendant did not file any opposition to the motion. On October 28, 2025, the Court
granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint a second time and directed the Clerk to file his
proposed Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 33),5 which was filed the same day.
2 See Text Order (ECF No. 24).
3 Id.
4 See Text Order (ECF No. 26).
5 See Text Order (ECF No. 32).
Case 2:25-cv-02282-JAR-JBW Document 46 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 35) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
on November 11, 2025. On December 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed his fifth Motion for Leave to Amend
(ECF No. 40), which is currently pending before the Court.
II. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is Untimely
When the deadline for amending the pleadings set in the scheduling order has passed before
the motion to amend is filed—as is the case here—Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) applies. It provides that
a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” The court
applies a two-step analysis based on both Rule 16(b) and Rule 15(a) when faced with a request to
amend a complaint filed after the scheduling order deadline.6 In other words, the court will first
determine whether the moving party has established “good cause” within the meaning of Rule
16(b)(4) to justify allowing the untimely motion.7 Only after determining good cause has been
established will the court proceed to determine if the movant has satisfied the more lenient Rule
15(a) standard.8
To establish good cause under Rule 16(b)(4), the moving party must show the deadline
could not have been met even if it had acted with due diligence.9 The lack of prejudice to the
nonmovant does not show good cause.10 A district court’s determination as to whether a party has
6 Estate of Ferrell by & Through Ferrell v. KB Custom Ag Servs. LLC, No. 23-CV-2384-TC-TJJ,
2024 WL 3890144, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 20, 2024) (citations omitted).
7 Id. (citing Gorsuch Ltd., B.C. v. Wells Fargo Nat’l Bank Ass’n, 771 F.3d 1230, 1240–41 (10th
Cir. 2014)).
8 Id. (citations omitted).
9 Id.
10 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-02282-JAR-JBW Document 46 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 5

4
established good cause sufficient to modify a scheduling order amendment deadline is within the
court’s discretion.11
The Court has already granted two of Plaintiff’s prior motions for leave to amend his
complaint. 12 Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend his complaint a third time but his motion is
untimely filed after the November 21, 2025 deadline set by the Scheduling Order. Plaintiff has not
shown good cause as required by Rule 16(b)(4) for his untimely motion. He has failed to show the
amendment deadline “could not have been met even if [he] had acted with due diligence.” Plaintiff
states in his reply that “[f]amily responsibilities, illness and previously scheduled commitments”
are a few of the reasons for the delay in filing his motion. These generic reasons fail to explain
why his fifth motion—seeking to amend to add facts Plaintiff knew at the time his employment
was terminated—could not have been filed by the November 21 amendment deadline, why he did
not file a motion for an extension of the deadline, or why the proposed amendment was not
included in any of his four earlier-filed motions seeking leave to amend his complaint.13 The Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “untimeliness alone is a sufficient reason to deny leave to
amend, especially when the party filing the motion has no adequate explanation for the delay.”14
Furthermore, “[w]here the party seeking amendment knows or should have known of the facts
upon which the proposed amendment is based but fails to include them in the original complaint,
11 Id.
12 See Text Orders (ECF Nos. 12 and 32).
13 Plaintiff states in his reply that “[f]amily responsibilities, illness and previously scheduled
commitments” are a few of the reasons for the delay in filing his motion. None of these
14 Frank v. U.S. W., Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365–66 (10th Cir. 1993) (internal citations omitted).
Case 2:25-cv-02282-JAR-JBW Document 46 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 5

5
the motion to amend is subject to denial.”15 Plaintiff did not provide an adequate reason for his
delay for his latest amendment after being granted two prior amendments of his complaint. Plaintiff
knew or should have known the facts he alleges in his proposed amendment but failed to timely
include them. Accordingly, untimeliness is a sufficient reason here to deny Plaintiff’s fifth motion
for leave to amend his complaint.
The Court is also mindful of Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant.16 Plaintiff’s pro se status,
however, does not provide him unlimited attempts to amend his complaint following the filing of
a motion to dismiss. Even under the liberal standard for amending the pleadings, Plaintiff is not
allowed to keep filing motions to amend his complaint. This merely causes needless delay and
expense by requiring Defendant to refile response briefs to Plaintiff’s motions, as well as refile
new motions to dismiss in response to each amended complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No.
40) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated January 30, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
15 Id.
16 See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (“A pro se litigant’s pleadings are to
be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”).
Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02282-JAR-JBW Document 46 Filed 01/30/26 Page 5 of 5