DECISION & ORDER AND REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s first motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 30), Plaintiff’s first motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 32), and the parties’ joint motion to stay discovery pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s motion to amend. (ECF No. 40.) For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the parties’ joint motion to stay discovery pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to amend and motion for an extension of time and recommends to the District Judge that Plaintiff’s motion to extend time and motion to amend be denied. On May 4, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff Eddie Garcia (“Plaintiff”) wrote a letter requesting an extension of time to join parties and amend pleadings. On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a memorandum of law in support of his motion to amend the pleadings for good cause shown pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Mem. of Law, ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff claims that despite delay, Plaintiff’s amended pleading should be accepted for good cause shown. Defendant Lewis Tree Service, Inc. (“Lewis Tree Service”), filed a response in opposition on June 17, 2022, claiming Plaintiff has not shown good cause, and that the proposed amendments would be futile and cause undue delay. (Resp. in Opp’n, ECF No. 33.) CASE HISTORY On May 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Lewis Tree Service and Robert Gaston.1 Plaintiff claims he was wrongfully terminated from his job at Lewis Tree Service upon receiving a cancer diagnosis in November of 2019. Plaintiff states that, in his absence, he provided his employer periodic updates concerning his prognosis and the date he anticipated returning to work. Plaintiff claims that he was terminated without his knowledge. He made claims for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”). Defendants moved to dismiss, and the Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford, Chief United States District Judge, granted the motion on March 10, 2022, in every respect except as to Plaintiff’s failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA. (Decision and Order, ECF No. 21.) The Decision and Order dismissed all claims against Defendant Robert Gaston for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Id.) On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in support of his motion to amend the pleadings for good cause shown. (Mem. of Law, ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff recognized that the deadline to amend pleadings set forth in the scheduling order had passed but claimed that the Court should nevertheless allow amendments. (Id.) Specifically, the proposed amendment adds Chris Gaston as a Defendant and adds additional facts relating to the FMLA. Further Plaintiff makes the following additional assertions: (1) During the relevant period, Plaintiff performed work in New York when he was called upon for storm work. (Pl.’s Am. Compl. 5, ECF No. 32-2.). (2) Robert and Chris Gaston each held a supervisory or managerial role over Plaintiff. (Id. at
10-11.) (3) Chris Gaston was employed by Lewis Tree at all relevant times. (Id. at 11). (4) Lewis Tree terminated Plaintiff’s employment in May 2020. (Id. at 16.) (5) Had Defendants, including Robert and Chris Gaston, notified Plaintiff of his FMLA rights, he would have spoken with his doctor and sought to return to work such that he could avail himself of the return-to-work rights under FMLA. (Id. at
