Azad v. Molina
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-01623
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Azad v. Molina, Judge Oetken denied Azad’s renewed request to amend his complaint and extended his deadline to oppose dismissal motions.
Mohammad A. Azad and the defendants’ motions to dismiss, including Louis A. Molina and the other defendants identified in the case caption.
What happened
In Azad v. Molina, Mohammad A. Azad again asked to change his complaint, saying he had learned new facts about the alleged wrongful termination of his employment. The request came after the court had already denied a previous request to amend and ordered him to respond to the defendants’ requests to dismiss the amended complaint.
The court denied the renewed request because another amendment would cause delay and unfairness to the defendants. Azad also did not identify the new facts, so the court could not determine whether they could properly be added or would make a difference.
The court gave Azad until May 6, 2025, to oppose the defendants’ requests to dismiss, warning that those requests would otherwise be treated as unopposed. Judge Oetken said this was the final extension absent compelling circumstances.
The detailed version
- Azad v. Molina · No. 1:24-cv-01623
- James Oetken
- Apr. 23, 2025
Background
On April 1, 2025, the court denied Azad’s motion for permission to amend his complaint for a second time. The court also directed him to oppose the defendants’ motions to dismiss by April 14, 2025. Instead of filing that opposition, Azad submitted another letter asking for permission to amend, asserting that he had learned new facts and information concerning the alleged wrongful termination of his employment.
Reasoning
The court relied on its earlier finding that Azad’s request to amend had been excessively delayed and that allowing another amendment would prejudice the defendants. Azad did not show that his renewed request would cure that problem. He also did not identify the new facts, preventing the court from evaluating whether the proposed amendments would be legally permissible or futile.
Ruling and deadline
The court again denied Azad’s motion to amend because a second amendment would cause undue delay and prejudice to the defendants. The court said Azad could include relevant new facts in his opposition to the defendants’ motions to dismiss, and the defendants could address those facts in their replies. Azad was ordered to oppose the motions by May 6, 2025, or the motions would be considered unopposed. Judge J. Paul Oetken stated that this was the final extension of the deadline absent compelling circumstances. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Azad.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.