Rued v. Jayswal
- John Tunheim
- 0:24-cv-01763
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Rued v. Jayswal, Judge Leung found the first amendment motion moot, granted the second, and made the proposed Second Amended Complaint operative.
The plaintiffs’ pleading was amended, and Natalie Hudson was formally named as a defendant in the proposed Second Amended Complaint. The order also affected Joseph Rued’s ability to act for W.O.R., the minor child.
What happened
Rued et al. v. Jayswal et al. involved two motions by the plaintiffs to amend their amended complaint. The motions sought to formally name Natalie Hudson as a defendant, and the defendants filed no response.
The court found the first motion moot because of the second motion. It granted the second motion and made the proposed Second Amended Complaint the operative pleading, directing the clerk to docket it.
Judge Tony N. Leung also reminded the self-represented plaintiffs that they must follow court rules and that Joseph Rued cannot represent the minor child. The order warned that future violations could lead to sanctions or dismissal.
The detailed version
- Rued v. Jayswal · No. 0:24-cv-01763
- John Tunheim
- June 24, 2024
Background
The court considered two motions to amend the amended complaint filed by Joseph Daryll Rued, W.O.R., a minor child, Scott Daryll Rued, and Leah Jean Rued. Joseph, Scott, and Leah were proceeding without lawyers. Joseph stated that he was also acting on behalf of W.O.R.
The plaintiffs had already used their one amendment allowed as a matter of course under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. They therefore needed the opposing parties’ written consent or the court’s permission to amend again. Based on the underlining in the proposed pleadings, the motions sought to formally name Natalie Hudson as a defendant who had been referenced in the amended complaint but not specifically named as a defendant. The plaintiffs served both motions, and no response was filed.
Ruling
The court found the first motion to amend, ECF No. 12, moot because of the second motion, ECF No. 14. It granted the second motion. The proposed Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 14-1, became the operative pleading, and the clerk was directed to docket that document as the Second Amended Complaint.
The order did not decide the underlying claims. It also stated that Joseph could not litigate on behalf of W.O.R. because non-attorney parents may not represent their minor children without authorization to practice law.
Additional Warning
Judge Tony N. Leung advised the plaintiffs that representing themselves did not excuse compliance with applicable rules, laws, and court orders. Although the court excused strict compliance with certain local rules in this instance, it warned that future failures could result in denied motions and sanctions, including costs, fines, attorney fees, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.