Nolan v. City of New York
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:23-cv-03147
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Nolan v. City of New York, Judge Gorenstein ordered briefing on opposition to the proposed amended complaint.
Ralph Nolan must wait for the court to decide whether to permit the proposed amendment. The defendants must state any opposition other than futility by February 11, 2025, and Nolan may reply by February 18, 2025.
What happened
In Nolan v. City of New York, Ralph Nolan asked to change his complaint instead of responding to the defendants’ request to dismiss the case.
The court directed the defendants to explain by February 11, 2025, whether they opposed the proposed amended complaint for reasons other than that the amendment would be legally ineffective. Nolan could reply by February 18, 2025.
Judge Gorenstein did not grant or deny permission to file the amended complaint in this order. He stated that, if permission were granted, the defendants could ask to dismiss the amended complaint instead of filing an answer.
The detailed version
- Nolan v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-03147
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Jan. 28, 2025
Background
In lieu of responding to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, Ralph Nolan filed a motion to amend his complaint. The opinion refers to the filings as docket numbers 43 and 45.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) generally provides that permission to amend a pleading should be given freely. The court noted that permission may be denied for reasons including undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to correct earlier deficiencies, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility. Futility means that the proposed amendment would not succeed as a legal matter.
The court concluded that it would be more efficient to address any argument that the amendment was futile in a later motion to dismiss after the proposed amended complaint was filed. It therefore directed the defendants, by February 11, 2025, to submit a letter or legal memorandum identifying any opposition to the amendment based on grounds other than futility. Nolan could file a reply by February 18, 2025.
Ruling and effect
Judge Gorenstein did not grant or deny the motion to amend in this order. The order states that, if the court grants permission to file the amended complaint, the defendants may file a motion to dismiss it instead of an answer. Any such motion would be heard by Judge Rearden and would have to comply with her individual practices.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.