DUVALL CHEMICALS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OSTERMAN & COMPANY, INC., D.b.a. Osterman Trading, Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Cross-Claimant-Appellee; Saxon Fibers, LLC., Defendant-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. G. Ross Rogers, Gerald T. Leonard, Third-Party-Defendants, 220 F. App'x 930

PER CURIAM: Duvall Chemicals, Inc., appeals the district court’s: (1) grant of Osterman & Company, Inc.’s motions for

summary judgment; (2) denial of Duvall’s motion for

summary judgment; and (3) denial of Duvall’s motion to amend. The Court reviews de novo the denial or grant of a motion for

summary judgment. Holloman v. Mail-Well Corp., 443 F.3d 832, 836 (11th Cir.2006). The denial of a motion to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir.2001). After careful review, we affirm. In a three-count complaint filed against Osterman, Duvall brought claims for fraud and deceit (count I), attorney’s fees (count II), and punitive damages (count III). Duvall’s claims stem from allegations that Osterman fraudulently drew on a letter of credit. Osterman moved for

summary judgment on counts I and III. Subsequent to the filing of Osterman’s motions, Duvall moved to amend its complaint to include a fourth claim. Additionally, Duvall moved for

summary judgment on counts I and II. As noted, the Court granted Osterman’s motions for

summary judgment and denied Duvall’s motion for

summary judgment and motion to amend. The motion to amend was filed after the deadline to amend prescribed in the district court’s scheduling order, without any explanation for its tardiness. Consequently, the Court cannot find that, in denying the motion to amend, the district court abused its discretion. See Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (11th Cir.1998). Thus, the Court affirms the denial of the motion to amend. The Court also affirms the district court’s grant of Osterman’s motions for

summary judgment and denial of Duvall’s motion for

summary judgment. Duvall’s fraud and deceit claim fails as a matter of law because Duvall has not established a triable issue of fact regarding the falsity of the representations that Osterman made to Regions in drawing on the letter of credit. Duvall’s other two claims were derivative of the fraud and deceit claim. As such, the district court’s grant of

summary judgment on those claims was also proper. For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s grant of Osterman’s motions for

summary judgment, denial of Duvall’s motion for

summary judgment, and denial of Duvall’s motion to amend are all affirmed. AFFIRMED.