Hector v. Johnson
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-05990
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Hector v. Johnson, Judge Briccetti denied John Hector’s motion to add a negligent-hiring claim as untimely, unsupported, and prejudicial.
John Hector’s request to add a negligent-hiring and supervision claim was denied; the existing case continues on the claims that remain, including conversion, trespass, and property damage.
What happened
In Hector v. Johnson, John Hector, an attorney representing himself, sued Kathleen Hector, Jeanine Hector, Edward Guthrie, Raymond Johnson, and unnamed defendants over a dispute involving two properties. He asked to add a negligent-hiring and supervision claim against Kathleen Hector.
The court found that Hector filed the request more than a year after the deadline in the scheduling order. It concluded that he had not shown a sufficient reason for missing the deadline and had not acted diligently to learn about the people involved in removing his belongings. The court also found that adding the claim would delay the case, unfairly burden the defendants, and fail because Hector had not alleged that Kathleen Hector knew or should have known that the two workers were likely to cause the alleged harm.
Judge Briccetti denied the motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion and scheduled a later case-management conference to discuss a trial date, pretrial filings, and settlement efforts.
The detailed version
- Hector v. Johnson · No. 7:22-cv-05990
- Vincent Briccetti
- Apr. 25, 2025
Background
John Hector, an attorney proceeding without a lawyer, sued Kathleen Hector, Jeanine Hector, Edward Guthrie, Raymond Johnson, and “Does 1 through 5.” The case concerns a dispute involving two properties that Hector and his mother, Kathleen Hector, allegedly owned together. Hector alleges that defendants entered one property without his permission to remove his belongings and that some of his property was lost or damaged. The remaining claims are under state law for conversion, trespass, and property damage. The court stated that its subject-matter jurisdiction was based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The court previously dismissed Hector’s other claims, including claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, partnership accounting, fraudulent inducement, partition, and intentional interference with contractual rights and economic advantage. It also previously declined a request to file a third amended complaint because repleading would be futile. A scheduling order set October 31, 2023, as the deadline to seek leave to amend the pleadings.
After discovery had closed, Hector sought leave to file a third amended complaint adding a negligent-hiring and supervision claim against Kathleen Hector. He said that, during Kathleen Hector’s September 30, 2024, deposition, he learned that she had hired two college students to help remove his belongings. He argued that the students might have caused the alleged damage or theft and that he would have investigated further and added the claim earlier if he had known of their involvement.
Legal Standard
Because Hector moved to amend after the scheduling deadline, the court applied both Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 15. Rule 16 allows a scheduling order to be changed only for “good cause,” meaning the person seeking the change must show diligence. If good cause is shown, Rule 15 generally favors allowing amendments, subject to reasons such as futility, bad faith, undue delay, or unfair prejudice to the opposing party.
The court also noted that self-represented litigants ordinarily receive a liberal reading of their submissions, but concluded that Hector was not entitled to that special treatment because he was a practicing attorney familiar with litigation.
Court’s Analysis
The court found the motion untimely. Hector raised the request nearly one year after the amendment deadline and did not successfully file a complete motion until nearly two months after raising the request at a status conference.
The court held that Hector failed to show good cause. It rejected his explanation that settlement discussions and efforts to reduce costs prevented him from learning about the two workers earlier. The court stated that Hector could have conducted discovery during the relevant period, requested an extension of the amendment deadline when other scheduling changes were made, or used written discovery rather than waiting for Kathleen Hector’s deposition. The court also noted that Hector had named unnamed defendants from the beginning but had not explained why he failed to investigate their identities before the deadline.
The court further held that the amendment would be improper even if good cause existed. Discovery was complete, defendants were prepared for trial, and allowing the new claim could require additional discovery and delay the case, causing unfair prejudice to defendants. The court also found the proposed claim futile. A proposed amendment is futile when it would not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that Hector had alleged only minimal facts and had not alleged that Kathleen Hector knew or should have known that the two students had a tendency to engage in the conduct that allegedly injured him.
Disposition
The court denied Hector’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. It instructed the clerk to terminate the motion and scheduled a May 20, 2025, case-management conference concerning, among other matters, a trial date, pretrial submissions, and settlement efforts.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.