Case: 18-13535 Date Filed: 06/07/2019 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ Nos. 18-13535; 19-11185 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-25254-JEM ANTHONY KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus AKIMA GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant - Appellee. ________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (June 7, 2019) Before MARCUS, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Anthony King filed a complaint against Akima Global Services, LLC in Florida state court alleging various violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act Case: 18-13535 Date Filed: 06/07/2019 Page: 2 of 9 (FCRA), Fla. Stat. § 760.10(1). Akima removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and filed an answer. Akima later filed a motion to amend its answer after the deadline to assert the federal enclave doctrine as a defense, which the district court granted. Near the end of discovery, the district court granted Akima’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the federal enclave doctrine barred King’s FCRA claims. King now appeals, arguing that the district court erred by allowing Akima to amend its answer and granting Akima’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. I. Motion to Amend Answer A. Background King was employed by Doyan-Akal JV, which provided services at Krome Detention Center under a contract with the federal government. After Doyan’s contract expired, the federal government contracted with Akima to provide services at Krome. The new contract required all existing employees to apply to, and interview with, Akima. King was not hired by Akima, which King alleged was due to his race, religion, and national origin. After the deadline to amend its answer passed, Akima filed a motion for leave to add the federal enclave doctrine as a defense, citing the Southern District of Florida’s recent decision in Booker v. Doyon Security Services, LLC, CM/ECF for S.D. Fla. Dist. Ct., 1:16-cv-24146-JAL, doc. 40. Booker held that the federal 2 Case: 18-13535 Date Filed: 06/07/2019 Page: 3 of 9 enclave doctrine barred a different Krome employee from raising state employment claims. Akima argued that adding the federal enclave defense was appropriate because Booker supported its argument, the decision was issued after Akima filed its answer, and King would not be prejudiced because the addition came before the end of discovery and before the dispositive motion deadline. B. Discussion We review the grant of a motion to amend the pleadings after the deadline for abuse of discretion. Moore v. Baker, 989 F.2d 1129, 1131 (11th Cir. 1993). A party may amend a pleading after the scheduling deadline “only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Leave to amend “should be freely given when justice so requires.” Id. The party seeking leave to amend after the scheduling order deadline must show good cause. Smith v. School Bd. of Orange Cty., 487 F.3d 1361, 1366 (11th Cir. 2007). Because it should be freely ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals