Cruz v. Local 32BJ
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:22-cv-03068
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Cruz v. Local 32BJ, Judge Aaron granted in part and denied in part amendment leave and denied Harvard’s extension motion as moot.
Carina Cruz may file a Second Amended Complaint subject to the limits described in the opinion and must meet the stated deadlines. Local 32BJ and Harvard Maintenance Inc. may answer or challenge that complaint, and Harvard’s request for additional response time was denied as moot.
What happened
Carina Cruz asked to file a second amended complaint against Local 32BJ and Harvard Maintenance Inc. after an earlier ruling dismissed some claims and allowed her to seek amendment of others. The court also considered Harvard’s request, joined by the Union, for more time to respond.
The court allowed Cruz to file the second amended complaint, but the request was granted in part and denied in part. Cruz was required to follow the earlier ruling about which claims she could bring, except that she could assert claims based on evidence she says she discovered later. The new complaint had to include all facts and claims she wanted the court to consider because it would replace, rather than add to, her earlier pleadings.
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered Cruz to file the complaint by February 7, 2025, and denied Harvard’s request for more time as moot. Defendants were given deadlines to answer or move against the new complaint, and the court provided guidance for Cruz as a self-represented litigant.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. Local 32BJ · No. 1:22-cv-03068
- Stewart Aaron
- Jan. 8, 2025
Background
Carina Cruz asked for permission to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint. Harvard Maintenance Inc. asked for more time to respond to that request, and Local 32BJ joined Harvard’s request. Cruz was proceeding without a lawyer.
The opinion described an earlier ruling by District Judge Gardephe on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. That ruling denied Harvard’s request to dismiss Cruz’s retaliation claims under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. It otherwise granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Cruz was allowed to seek amendment of specified claims against Harvard and Local 32BJ, subject to limits on the dates and types of claims identified in that earlier ruling.
Amendment ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part Cruz’s request to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint. The court stated that Cruz could file the complaint, but she had to follow the earlier ruling concerning the claims she could assert. The court also allowed her to assert claims based on evidence that she says was newly discovered after the earlier motion-to-dismiss briefing.
The court explained that a complaint that is amended replaces the earlier complaint rather than supplementing it. Therefore, any facts or claims from the earlier pleadings that Cruz wanted the court to consider had to be repeated in the Second Amended Complaint. The court directed her to provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim against each defendant, including relevant people, events, dates, locations, alleged injuries, and requested relief.
The court did not decide whether the Second Amended Complaint would ultimately state valid claims. It noted that the defendants could challenge deficiencies by answering or filing a motion to dismiss after Cruz filed the new complaint.
Other motion and deadlines
Because the court granted Cruz permission to file the complaint, it denied Harvard’s letter motion for additional time as moot. Cruz had to file the Second Amended Complaint by February 7, 2025. Defendants had to answer or file a motion concerning that complaint by March 7, 2025. If a defendant filed a motion to dismiss, Cruz’s opposition was due April 4, 2025, and any reply was due April 11, 2025.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered an order granting in part and denying in part Cruz’s request to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint and denying Harvard’s letter motion as moot.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.