District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. This case was filed on January 29, 2024. The Court previously set forth the procedural history in its May 8, 2026, Order [Dkt. 83] and will not repeat it here.
On May 8, 2026 [Dkt. 83], the Court permitted Mr. Krua to file a Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint within 21 days. The Order required that any such Motion address the good cause standard, including why, with the exercise of diligence, Rev. Krua had not previously added the proposed parties and claims. Accordingly, Mr. Krua's Motion for Leave was due on May 29, 2026.
On May 27, 2026, Mr. Krua filed a Motion for Extension of Time [Dkt. 85] seeking an extension to June 5, 2026. The Court granted this extension [Dkt. 86]. On June 5, 2026, Mr. Krua did in fact file his Motion for Leave to Amend [Dkt. 89].
The Court has reviewed the Motion [Dkt. 89] and finds that it does not address the good cause standard, including why the proposed additional parties and claims were not previously included. Mr. Krua was directed in the last order [Dkt. 83] to “address the good cause standard, including why, with the necessary exercise of diligence, [he] did not previously add the proposed additional parties and claims." The Motion seeks to add Family Independence Initiative d/b/a Uptogether (misnamed “FII/Uptogether”), which the Court addressed in its May 8, 2026, Order [Dkt. 83]. Mr. Krua has not explained why these parties and claims were not added earlier as instructed.
Additionally, the proposed Third Amended Complaint asserts claims against Mauricio Miller, who is already a Defendant, rather than against “FII/Uptogether.” Mr. Miller is the President and Founder of Family Independence Initiative d/b/a Uptogether (misnamed “FII/Uptogether”) and has been a party to this action since its filing in January 2024. Because Mr. Krua has not shown good cause for failing to add “FII/Uptogether” earlier, his Motion to Amend [Dkt. 89] is DENIED, and Motion for Hearing on the Motion to Amend [Dkt. 91] is also DENIED.
The Court notes that the Second Amended Complaint [Dkt. 38] remains the operative complaint. The Court will separately address Plaintiff’s pending Amended Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim [Dkt. 48].
(CEH)