Azad v. Molina

Background

Mohammad A. Azad, representing himself, moved for permission to amend his complaint for a second time. He sought to add state-law claims, plead the important facts more concisely, remove his Sixth Amendment claim, and dismiss the case as to Defendant Eric Adams.

The City of New York and city employee defendants opposed the motion. They argued that the request was unreasonably delayed, made in bad faith, and would prejudice them.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a party generally may amend a pleading with the court’s permission, and courts should freely grant permission when justice requires. A court may deny permission because of undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to fix earlier problems, unfair prejudice to the opposing party, or a futile amendment. Prejudice can include the need for substantial additional discovery and trial preparation or a significant delay in resolving the dispute.

Court’s analysis and ruling

The court agreed that Azad’s second request was unduly delayed and that allowing it would prejudice the defendants. Azad had waited nearly five months to seek the amendment and did not explain the delay. The court noted that the defendants had already re-briefed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint. Allowing another amendment would lead to a third round of motions and delay the case for additional months.

The court therefore denied Azad’s motion to amend. The court stated that, if Azad wanted to voluntarily dismiss the case as to Eric Adams, he could do so by sending a letter to the court. It also directed Azad to oppose the defendants’ motions to dismiss by April 14, 2025, or those motions would be treated as unopposed. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Azad a copy of the order.