CHRISTIAN MARCOS RAMOS v. NATALIA PRODIGY WILLIAMS (2026)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT [DE 60]

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Christian Marcos Ramos’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint (“Motion”) [DE 60]. The Motion is fully briefed. See DEs 67, 68, 69. This matter is now ripe for review.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Complaint [DE 1] against Defendant Natalia Prodigy Williams (“Defendant”), alleging copyright infringement. Defendant filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses [DE 9] on February 16, 2026. Plaintiff moved for leave to file a First Amended Complaint, which the Court allowed as a matter of course. [DEs 11, 12]. The First Amended Complaint was filed on February 23, 2026. [DE 14]. Defendant again answered. [DE 15]. Thereafter, the parties filed a Joint Scheduling Report [DE 18], and the Court issued an Order Setting Jury Trial and Pretrial Deadlines [DE 23] based on the parties’ proposed deadlines. Per that Order, the deadline for amending the pleadings was April 10, 2026. [DE 23 at 2]. After some motion practice, the Court allowed Defendant to file an Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses [DE 40].

On April 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. [DE 43]. The Court granted that unopposed motion. [DE 44]. Then, on April 20, 2026, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. [DE 46]. The Court also granted that unopposed motion. [DE 49]. Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint [DE 52] on April 22, 2026.

The instant Motion [DE 60] was filed on April 30, 2026. In his Motion, Plaintiff tries to establish good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) as follows: “first, Defendant's April 16, 2026 discovery responses and production clarified the file-specific facts and uses of the four photographs; second, Defendant's April 24, 2026 Rule 11 motion specifically attacked the then-operative damage allegations and prompted Plaintiff to further narrow and conform them during the safe-harbor period.” [DE 60 at 2–3]. Plaintiff also claims he acted diligently and that the amendment will not prejudice Defendant. Id. at 3.

This time, Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. In response to the Motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's conduct in seeking to amend his complaint three times between April 16, 2026, and April 30, 2026, constitutes “an abuse of the privilege to amend, which should result in denial of the Motion.” [DE 67 at 3]. Defendant also points out that Plaintiff previously cited Defendant's discovery responses as the basis for filing a Third Amended Complaint, so he should not be permitted to base his current request on those same discovery responses. Id. at 3–4. Finally, she asserts that she previously served Plaintiff with a Rule 11 motion on April 10, 2026, which discussed Plaintiff's claim for actual damages in the First Amended Complaint. Id. at 4. Since that time, Plaintiff has amended his complaint twice and has failed both times to “amend or address Williams’ argument that his claim for actual damages is nonexistent, which resulted in Williams serving the April 24 Motion.” Id.

In reply, Plaintiff emphasizes that the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint “keeps the same parties, the same single copyright claim, the same four image files, and the same alleged unauthorized uses. It adds no new claim, no new defendant, no new image, no new platform, and no new infringement event.” [DE 68 at 1]. According to Plaintiff, the sole purpose of the Fourth Amended Complaint is to “conform the operative pleading to the damages theory Plaintiff can support in good faith after Defendant served a second Rule 11 motion directed at the Third Amended Complaint's actual-damages language.” Id. at 1–2. Plaintiff has also filed a Declaration [DE 69] in support of the Motion. He maintains that he filed the Motion five days after Defendant served the newest iteration of her Rule 11 motion. Id. ¶ 7.

II. APPLICABLE LAW

“[W]hen a motion for leave to amend a pleading is filed after the deadline set in a court's scheduling order, the court employs a two-step analysis.” Marabella v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., No. 19-CV-25185, 2021 WL 24710, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2021) (citing Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (11th Cir. 1998)). First, the court must determine whether the movant has demonstrated good cause under Rule 16(b). Sosa, 133 F.3d at 1419. Second, the court must determine whether amendment is proper under Rule 15(a). Id.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “This good cause standard precludes modification unless the schedule cannot be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Sosa, 133 F.3d at 1418 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Good cause exists when ‘evidence supporting the proposed amendment would not have been discovered in the exercise of reasonable diligence until after the amendment deadline passed.’ ” Rothfos Corp. v. H&H Coffee Invs., LLC, No. 22-CV-24000, 2023 WL 9022694, at * 3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2023) (citing Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & Transp., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 697, 699 (S.D. Fla. 2007)). “[E]ven if the opposing party would not be prejudiced by the modification of a scheduling order, good cause is not shown if the amendment could have been timely made.” Id. Thus, a court's “evaluation of good cause [under Rule 16] is more stringent than its inquiry into the propriety of amendment under the more liberal Rule 15.” Id.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 states in pertinent part that, unless a party is entitled to amend its pleading as a matter of course pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1), “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Rule also provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. “A district court need not ․ allow an amendment (1) where there has been undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed; (2) where allowing amendment would cause undue prejudice to the opposing party; or (3) where amendment would be futile.” Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001). “Leave to amend a complaint is futile when the complaint as amended would still be properly dismissed or be immediately subject to summary judgment for the defendant.” Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Hall v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 367 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 2004)).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Rule 16(b) Analysis

As stated above, the Court must first consider the Motion under Rule 16(b). Plaintiff filed his Motion within five days after receiving a proposed Rule 11 motion from Defendant. While the Court understands that Plaintiff did not attempt to amend his damages allegations after being provided with the first proposed Rule 11 motion on April 10, 2026, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and should be afforded some additional leniency. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established good cause for amending the complaint after the amendment deadline. He shall be provided with an additional the opportunity to comply with Rule 11's safe harbor provision, which states that a Rule 11 motion cannot be filed “if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). See Rolle v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., No. 13-60976-CIV, 2014 WL 11638588, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 28, 2014) (“To deny [the plaintiff] the opportunity to amend his Amended Complaint would ignore the purpose of Rule 11, which is to allow parties an opportunity to correct their mistakes before a sanctions motion is filed in court.”).

B. Rule 15 Analysis

Next, the Court must analyze the Motion under Rule 15. The Court cannot find, at this juncture, that there has been any undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of Plaintiff. Thus, leave to amend should be freely given unless amendment would cause undue prejudice to Defendant, or the amendment would be futile. Defendant makes no argument about prejudice or futility in her Response and has, therefore, waived any such arguments. Regardless, as to prejudice, the Court notes that Plaintiff is proposing changes only to the asserted damages, and this change is likely beneficial to Defendant. Further, the discovery deadline in this case is not until August 31, 2026, and dispositive motions are not due until September 21, 2026. [DE 23]. As to futility, Defendant has made no argument on this issue, and Plaintiff represents that he is clarifying the damages sought in order to conform the pleadings to the arguments made by Defendant in the proposed Rule 11 motion.

IV. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff's Motion is due to be granted. However, the Court hereby puts Plaintiff on notice that he is not entitled to unlimited bites at the apple, and that the amendment deadline ran on April 10, 2026. Therefore, no further amendments will be granted unless Plaintiff can meet the requirements of Rules 15 and 16.¹

It is hereby ORDERED that upon Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint [DE 60] is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall promptly file his Fourth Amended Complaint as a separate docket entry.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 26th day of May 2026.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Court will not provide Plaintiff with unlimited opportunities to amend his complaint after the amendment deadline, even if he is served with a future proposed Rule 11 motion. See Lane v. G.A.F. Material Corp., No. 8:11-CV-2851-T-30TBM, 2013 WL 268690, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2013) (finding the phrase “appropriately corrected” in Rule 11 “does not entitle a party to amend whenever it chooses, disregarding Rule 16(b)’s requirement to show good cause in order to adjust the Court's Scheduling Order.”).

WILLIAM MATTHEWMAN United States Magistrate Judge