Riggert 2009 WL 62254 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.).

Pleading - Creditor could not amend denial-of-discharge complaint to assert new claims once discovery had ended and deadline had passed.

A creditor would not be allowed to amend its denial-of-discharge complaint in order to assert entirely new facts in support of its claims after the deadline for filing such complaints had passed, after the time for discovery had ended, and with less than four months remaining before trial was set to begin. The creditor failed to provide any clear or reasonable explanation for its delay. Moreover, the debtor would be prejudiced by this delay, in that the amendment would require the debtor to prepare to defend entirely new claims after discovery had ended. Finally, the amendment, not arising out of the same conduct or transaction addressed in original complaint, would not relate back. Thus, the amendment could be denied on undue delay, unfair prejudice, and futility grounds.