Shibley v. Martin et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Duncan Shibley,
Plaintiff,
v.
Americ Martin, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-00527
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND
In this personal injury suit, Plaintiff Duncan Shibley filed an unopposed
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. Dkt. 40. For the following
reasons, leave is granted.
Shibley alleges that he was injured while assisting Defendants with the
load on their trailer. 	Id. at 1. 	He sued Defendants Americ Martin, Jemil
Martin, 	and 	Cortez 	Chancellor 	on 	February 	7, 	2025. 	Dkt. 	1 	(original
complaint). 	On August 29, 2025 Shibley amended his complaint to add
Defendant Triple AAA Holdings LLC (“Triple AAA I”) after he first became
aware of Triple AAA’s involvement in the incident. 	Dkt. 21 (first amended
complaint); Dkt. 22 (second amended complaint). 	After serving Triple AAA I,
the entity informed Shibley that they were the incorrect party. See Dkt. 40 at
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-00527 Document 42 Filed 04/15/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2
2. 	It took Shibley “nearly six months” to find the correct entity, Triple AAA
Holdings, 	LLC 	(“Triple 	AAA 	II”). 	Id. 	While 	searching 	for 	the 	correct
defendant, the parties engaged in discovery, which helped identify Triple AAA
II and its role in the underlying incident. See id. at 2-3.
After Triple AAA II was served, Dkt. 37 (return of service), it submitted
a request for a pre-motion conference and leave to file a 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss. Dkt. 38. Triple AAA II contends that the second amended complaint
(Dkt. 22) contains insufficient factual allegations to support Shibley’s claim
against it. See Dkt. 38 at 2.
Shibley explains that the third amended complaint would substitute the
correct Triple AAA Holdings, LLC defendant and clarify his allegations against
this new party to include new, recently-obtained information. 	See Dkt. 40 at
2-3. 	The deadline to amend pleadings has expired. 	Dkt. 20 (September 22,
2025 deadline).
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) governs amendment of pleadings
after a scheduling order’s deadline to amend has expired.” 	Fahim v. Marriott
Hotel Servs., Inc., 551 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2008); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
“Rule 16(b) provides that once a scheduling order has been entered, it may be
modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” 	Fahim, 551 F.3d
at 348 (quotation omitted).
Case 4:25-cv-00527 Document 42 Filed 04/15/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3
The good cause standard “requires a party ‘to show that the deadlines
cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party needing the
extension.’” 	Id. (quoting S&W Enters., LLC v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., N.A.,
315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003)). 	Several factors are relevant: “(1) the
explanation 	for 	the 	failure 	to 	timely 	move 	for 	leave 	to 	amend; 	(2) 	the
importance 	of 	the 	amendment; 	(3) 	potential 	prejudice 	in 	allowing 	the
amendment; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir. 2003) (quotation
omitted).
Those factors support a good cause finding. First, Shibley explained that
the delay in seeking leave to amend was due to the extensive time it took him
to identify the correct Triple AAA defendant and learn about its role in the
incident. 	See Dkt. 40 at 2-3. 	Second, the amendment is important because it
substitutes the correct defendant in this lawsuit. 	See id. at 2; Elvir v. Trinity
Marine Prods., Inc., 327 F.R.D. 532, 544 (M.D. La. 2018) (amendment to add
the correct defendants was important), aff’d, 2018 WL 4628320 (M.D. La. Sept.
27, 2018); see also, e.g., Sanchez v. Thomas, 2024 WL 4758836, at *3-4 (W.D.
Tex. Oct. 22, 2024) (the importance of substituting the correct defendant,
whose role in the allegations were discovered nine months after the deadline
to amend expired, weighed in favor of finding good cause), adopted by 2024 WL
4758053 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2024). 	Third, the motion is unopposed, and no
Case 4:25-cv-00527 Document 42 Filed 04/15/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4
party has articulated any potential prejudice resulting from the amendment.
Indeed, the discovery deadline has not yet expired, and the parties may seek
an extension of that deadline if necessary to obtain information concerning the
new defendant. See Dkt. 20 (May 1, 2026 discovery deadline).
Because there is good cause to grant leave to amend, the Court further
addresses the standard under Rule 15(a), which evinces a bias favoring
amendment. 	See SBN V FNBC, LLC v. Damon J. Baldone, a Prof. L. Corp.,
2023 WL 2731706, at *2 & nn. 10, 13 (citing S&W Enters., 315 F.3d at 535-36
and Smith v. EMC Corp., 393 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2004)). 	Under that
standard, the Court considers the following factors: (1) undue delay; (2) bad
faith or dilatory motive; (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous
amendments; (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party; and (5) futility of the
amendment. 	See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 	To constitute
undue 	delay, 	the 	delay 	“must 	prejudice 	the 	nonmoving 	party 	or 	impose
unwarranted burdens on the court.” 	Mayeaux v. La. Health Serv. & Indem.
Co., 376 F.3d 420, 427 (5th Cir. 2004).
Shibley has adequately explained his delay in seeking his amendment.
See Dkt. 40 at 2-3. And no party has asserted—nor does the record suggest—
that amendment would be unduly prejudicial, burdensome, in bad faith or for
dilatory motive. 	While Triple AAA II intends to file a motion to dismiss, see
Dkt. 38, the alleged pleading deficiencies do not indicate that amendment
Case 4:25-cv-00527 Document 42 Filed 04/15/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5
would be futile. 	To the contrary, Shibley’s proposed amendment seeks to
address the issues identified in the pre-motion conference letter (Dkt. 38) by
expanding his allegations about Triple AAA II’s actions. See Dkt. 40 at 3.
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Duncan Shibley’s motion for
leave (Dkt. 40) is GRANTED. Plaintiff must file his third amended complaint
on the docket by April 22, 2026.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant Triple AAA II’s request for pre-
motion conference (Dkt. 38) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Signed on April 15, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
________________________________
Yvonne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-00527 Document 42 Filed 04/15/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5