Edmond v. Venture Global LNG, Inc. et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
QUANDA EDMOND 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-1394
VENTURE GLOBAL LNG, INC., ET
AL.
SECTION “R” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff Quanda Edmond’s unopposed motion to
modify the scheduling order and for leave to file a third amended complaint. 1
For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion.
If the deadline for amending pleadings in a case management order has
expired, the movant must demonstrate good cause to modify the scheduling
order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) before the more liberal
standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) applies to the court’s
decision to grant or deny leave. 	Shaw v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., 93
F.4th 284, 292 (5th Cir. 2024). 	In the Fifth Circuit, courts consider four
factors to determine whether good cause exists to grant leave to amend after
the expiration of a scheduling order deadline: “(1) the explanation for the
failure to timely move for leave to amend; (2) the importance of the
1 	R. Doc.46
Case 2:25-cv-01394-SSV-EJD Document 48 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 2

2
amendment; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the amendment; and (4) the
availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.” Id. at 293 (quoting
Filgueira v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 734 F.3d 420, 422 (5th Cir. 2013).
Considering 	the 	four 	factors, 	the 	Court 	finds 	that 	Edmond 	has
established good cause to modify the scheduling order to allow for the filing
of another amended complaint. The Court grants leave to file the amended
complaint under the permissive standard of Rule 15(a). Filgueira, 734 F.3d
at 422 (noting that the more liberal Rule 15(a) standard applies only after a
party shows good cause for modifying the scheduling order).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Edmond’s motion to
modify the scheduling order and for leave to file a third amended complaint.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of February, 2026.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01394-SSV-EJD Document 48 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 2