ORDER

LAWRENCE KARLTON, District Judge.

Pursuant to this court's pretrial scheduling order issued on May 23, 2011, all law and motion in this matter is to be completed by July 16, 2012. ECF No. 24. The final law and motion date before that deadline is July 9, 2012. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(b), motions must be submitted no later than 28 days prior to the hearing date. For the July 9, 2012 law and motion calendar, motions must have been filed by June 11, 2012. Additionally, the pretrial scheduling order provided that no further amendment of pleadings is permitted, except with leave of the court, good cause being shown. Plaintiffs have not moved to amend the scheduling order.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on June 11, 2012, which was set for hearing on July 9, 2012. ECF No. 59. On June 12, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, and noticed it to be heard on July 9, 2012. ECF No. 60. The motion was filed one day after the deadline for filing a motion for that hearing date. The court hereby accepts plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as timely filed.

On June 15, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, and simultaneously filed their amended complaint. ECFs No. 61 and 62, respectively. Plaintiffs attempt to notice the motion for a July 9, 2012 hearing. In the amended complaint filed, plaintiffs reassert their Defamation of Character/Slander and False Light causes of action, which were previously dismissed without prejudice. The motion was four days late, and plaintiffs have offered no explanation for their failure to comply with the deadlines set forth in Local Rule 230(b). The court finds that it would be unfairly prejudicial to defendants to permit the late filing of the motion for leave to amend the complaint. Moreover, plaintiffs can not re-notice their motion for leave to amend the complaint because there are no further law and motion dates before the July 16, 2012 cut-off date in the court's scheduling order. If the court were to grant leave to amend the complaint, defendants would be deprived of the opportunity to file any motions relative to the reasserted causes of action. Although the court is mindful of the preference to dispose of matters on their merits, the court finds that in this case, to permit plaintiffs the opportunity to re-notice their motion for leave to amend the complaint for a hearing date beyond that which is permitted in the scheduling order would cause undue delay and prejudice to the defendants.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.