Golden v. Verizon
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-05757
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Golden v. Verizon, Judge Abrams denied Timothy J. Golden’s request to amend because his federal claims were time-barred and the proposed amendment was futile.
Timothy J. Golden’s effort to amend his complaint against Verizon New York Inc.; the case was directed to remain closed.
What happened
Golden v. Verizon New York Inc. began after the court ordered Timothy J. Golden to say whether he wanted to amend his complaint. The court closed the case after receiving no letter by the deadline, but later received Golden’s letter, dated before the deadline, asking to amend.
The court decided that changing the complaint would not help. It said Golden’s federal claims were still too late because his 2021 charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was filed long after his January 26, 2018 retirement. The court also said he identified no new facts that would fix the problems in his complaint. A proposed claim under a federal criminal law was also futile because that law does not allow private lawsuits.
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Golden’s request for permission to amend. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case and mail Golden a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Golden v. Verizon · No. 1:22-cv-05757
- Ronnie Abrams
- Aug. 9, 2024
Background
On July 16, 2024, the Court ordered Timothy J. Golden to submit a letter by August 1 stating whether he wanted to amend his complaint. After receiving no letter by that date, the Court closed the case on August 5. The Court later received Golden’s letter, dated July 31, which sought permission to amend the complaint and included exhibits.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) generally permits amendment of pleadings when fairness requires it. A court may deny permission, however, when amendment would be futile. An amendment is futile if the proposed claim could not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a legally sufficient claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Court’s reasoning
The Court denied leave to amend because any amendment would be futile. Relying on its February 16, 2024 opinion, the Court stated that Golden’s federal claims remained time-barred. Among other reasons, the Court said Golden filed his 2021 charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission too late—long after his January 26, 2018 retirement. The Court also found that Golden identified no new facts that would cure the deficiencies in his complaint.
Golden’s letter additionally sought to add a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, a federal criminal statute concerning false statements made within a federal agency’s jurisdiction. The Court concluded that this proposed claim could not survive a motion to dismiss because the statute does not create a private right of action, meaning it does not authorize a private person to bring a civil lawsuit under it. To the extent Golden sought to add that claim, the Court denied leave to amend as futile.
Disposition
The Court denied Golden’s motion for leave to amend. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case and mail Golden a copy of the order. The Court also encouraged Golden to consult a lawyer or legal assistance group about whether he might bring plausible, non-time-barred claims in state court before the applicable limitations period expires.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.