Abbott v. City Of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-05152
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Abbott v. City of New York, Judge Broderick denied Abbott’s request to add Officer Nercy Burgos because she lacked diligence and good cause.
Transonia Abbott, the City of New York, and Police Officer Nercy Burgos, whom Abbott sought to add as a defendant.
What happened
In Abbott v. City of New York, Transonia Abbott asked to change the complaint to name Police Officer Nercy Burgos as a defendant instead of a Jane Doe officer. The City of New York opposed the request.
The court said Abbott had not shown good cause for missing the November 1, 2023 deadline to add parties. The City had identified Burgos in October 2023, and even under Abbott’s account, Abbott learned the information by November 21, 2023 but waited more than five months to seek permission. The court also found that adding Burgos would prejudice the defendants because discovery was already underway.
Judge Broderick denied Abbott’s motion for leave to amend. The parties were ordered to file a proposed amended case-management and scheduling order by July 31, 2024, and the clerk was directed to close the listed motions.
The detailed version
- Abbott v. City Of New York · No. 1:23-cv-05152
- Vernon Broderick
- July 10, 2024
Background
Transonia Abbott moved for permission to amend the complaint to name Police Officer Nercy Burgos as a defendant. The complaint had identified an unknown female officer as a Jane Doe defendant and alleged that the officer watched Abbott use the restroom while Abbott was detained in New York City Police Department custody. The City of New York opposed the motion.
Legal standard
The court explained that replacing a Jane Doe defendant with a named person is treated as adding or changing a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Although Rule 15 generally calls for permission to amend to be given freely when justice requires, a case-management and scheduling order had set a deadline for adding parties. Under Rule 16, a party seeking to amend after that deadline must show “good cause,” meaning a sufficient reason for not meeting the deadline. Lack of diligence alone can justify denying the request, and prejudice to the opposing party is also relevant.
Court’s analysis
The court determined that the deadline for adding parties was November 1, 2023, under the Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order issued on October 2, 2023. The court rejected Abbott’s argument that an October 26 deadline in a Section 1983 plan controlled.
The City’s October 12, 2023 initial disclosures identified Police Officer Nercy Burgos as someone likely to have discoverable information. The City also produced the underlying final investigation file. The court said Abbott did not explain why Abbott failed to investigate or seek amendment before the November 1 deadline. Even accepting Abbott’s assertion that videos and recordings received on November 21, 2023 first established Burgos’s identity as the Jane Doe officer, Abbott waited more than five months—until May 2, 2024—to seek leave to amend. The court found no good cause for that delay. It also noted that Abbott had not requested additional time to investigate the Jane Doe defendant’s identity.
The court further found that allowing the amendment at that stage would prejudice the defendants because discovery had been ongoing since October 2023 and the amendment could require additional discovery and preparation.
Disposition
The court DENIED Abbott’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to name Police Officer Nercy Burgos as a defendant. It ordered the parties to file a proposed amended case-management plan and scheduling order by July 31, 2024. The clerk was directed to terminate the open motions at Documents 28 and 32.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.