TEXT ORDER. This homeowner's insurance action arose from property damage sustained by Plaintiffs during Hurricane Helene, which passed through Greenville, South Carolina, on September 27, 2024. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract/fraud/bad faith/negligent supervision against Defendant State Farm and individual Defendants Hegar, an adjuster employed by State Farm, and Sitan, an independent adjuster. The parties have jointly sought -- and received -- two extensions of time to the court's scheduling order. Under the current scheduling order, the discovery deadline is September 29, 2026; mediation must be completed by October 5, 2026; and motions must be filed on or before October 29. For purposes of today's motions, the most significant deadline has already expired, as motions to add other parties and amend the pleadings were required to be filed by March 23, 2026.
On May 4, 2026, Plaintiffs learned for the first time that Defendant Sitan was employed as an adjuster by Miller Claims Services, LLC. Thus, Plaintiffs sought the consent of the Defendants to seek leave to amend the scheduling order and amend the complaint to add Miller Claims Services, LLC as a Defendant. Defendants State Farm and Hegar gave consent. And, in an email exchange between counsel in late June 2026, it appeared that Defendant Sitan consented as well. (ECF No. 56 ).
Nonetheless, on July 28, 2026, when Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to amend the scheduling order, (ECF No. 48 ), and motion for leave to amend the complaint, (ECF No. 49 ), Defendant Sitan had withdrawn consent for these motions. Defendants State Farm and Hegar continued to consent to these motions. Defendant Sitan subsequently filed responses in opposition at ECF Nos. 50 and 51 . Plaintiffs submitted a reply. (ECF No. 53 ).
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 Plaintiffs did not file their motions until after the pleading deadline of March 23, 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) states that "[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." "[A] finding of good cause under Rule 16 depends on the diligence of the party seeking amendment[.]" Faulconer, 808 F. App'x at 152 n.1 (collecting cases). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) provides that "[w]hen an act... must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend time... on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect."
On August 20, 2026, the court conducted a hearing on Plaintiffs' motions. Having carefully considered the materials filed with the court and the arguments presented by counsel during the hearing, the court finds good cause to extend the deadlines in the scheduling order and allow Plaintiffs to amend the complaint to include Miller Claims Services LLC -- a Georgia company according to the representations of counsel during the hearing -- as a party to this action. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motions at ECF No. 48 and ECF No. 49 . The... (truncated)