Order | Filed: August 11, 2026
| Entered: August 11, 2026
Wilbanks et al v. Nissan North America Inc et al
Contract: Other | South Carolina
Order ~Util - Set Deadlines
TEXT ORDER. Pending before the court are six motions seeking protective orders regarding various discovery-related issues. (ECF No. 144 , 146 , 159 , 163 , 166 , 179 ). Defendants Nissan North America, Inc., Nissan Motor Company, LTD and Nissan Technical Center North America, Inc. have consented to referral of all outstanding motions to a magistrate judge for disposition. (ECF No. 185 ). Plaintiffs have consented to the referral of the case to a magistrate judge for final disposition. (ECF No. 186 ). Plaintiffs, through counsel have also advised the Court's Civil Case Manager that Plaintiffs consent to referral of the referenced motions to a magistrate judge for disposition (ECF No. 191]). Several non-party movants have filed motions for protective orders. Non-party Cathey and Strain, LLC filed the motion at ECF No. 144 . Non-party Bowman and Brooke, LLP filed the motion at ECF No. 146 . Non-party Parham Smith & Archenhold, LLC filed the motions at ECF No. 159 and 179 . Non-party Ashlee Edwards filed the motion at ECF No. 163 .
Accordingly, on or before August 14, 2026, each non-party movant identified herein shall file a status report reflecting their agreement or refusal to consent to final disposition of such motions by a magistrate judge. Entered at the direction of the Honorable Chief Judge Timothy M Cain on 8/11/26. (kmca)
Order | Filed: August 11, 2026
| Entered: August 11, 2026
Wilbanks et al v. Nissan North America Inc et al
Contract: Other | South Carolina
Order on Motion to Amend/Correct Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
TEXT ORDER: Hunter Wilbanks, Russell Wilbanks, and Risa Baldwin ("Plaintiffs"), who were represented by Cathey & Strain, LLC as well as Parham Smith & Archenhold, LLC ("Parham"), reached an agreement with Nissan, which was represented by Bowman & Brooke, LLP, to settle a state court action. Unfortunately, Nissan's counsel mistakenly directed the settlement proceeds to an account owned by an unknown fraudster and only a portion of those funds have been recovered. Accordingly, Plaintiffs filed this action for breach of contract against Nissan North America, Nissan Motor Company, and Nissan Technical Center North America ("Nissan Defendants"), alleging they breached the settlement agreement by failing to pay them the agreed upon cash settlement amount. (ECF No. 1 at 8). Six months after the deadline to amend the pleadings, and nearly a year after this case was filed, the Nissan Defendants moved for an extension of the deadline to amend the pleadings and for leave to file an amended answer and third-party complaint. (ECF Nos. 135 , 136 ). In their proposed third-party complaint, the Nissan Defendants seek to name Cathey & Strain and Parham as third-party defendants and assert claims for negligence, fraud, and equitable indemnity. (ECF Nos. 135 , 136 , 136 -1). The Nissan Defendants allege "[t]he misdirection of the cash settlement payment was the result of Cathey & Strain's and Parham's negligence" because one of these firm's was "hacked, which gave the [fraudster] access to the parties' communications," which resulted in Nissan's counsel receiving fraudulent wire instructions. (ECF No. 136 -1 at 22, 25-27). They also contend Cathey & Strain and Parham should have warned Nissan and its counsel that a third-party had gained access to one of their systems and that, prior to the transfer of the settlement funds, they had received suspicious emails relating to the wire instructions. Id. at 27-29. According to the Nissan Defendants, "[i]f Nissan is held liable to [Plaintiffs] for having to pay the cash settlement payment a second time, then Cathey & Strain and Parham will be liable to Nissan for the full amount of any such payment[.]" Id. at 30, 32.
Both of the instant motions are contested and have been fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 ). No party disputes that the Nissan Defendants are required to obtain court approval to amend their pleading. While Rule 15 provides a court should freely grant a party leave to amend its pleading "when justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), because the Nissan Defendants waited until after the pleading deadline to file their motions, the standards set forth under Rules 6 and 16, not Rule 15, govern the court's analysis. See, e.g., Faulconer v. Centra Health, Inc., 808 F. App'x 148, 152 (4th Cir. 2020) (finding that when the plaintiff moved to amend his complaint eight months after the scheduling order deadline, the applicable standard was "the 'good cause' requirement of Rule 16"). See also Eichin v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, LLC, 173 F.4th 124, 127 (4th Cir. 2026) (recognizing that "[w]here, as here, a party seeks to extend a scheduling order deadline after the deadline has passed, both rules [6 and 16] are implicated").
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) stat... (truncated)