Daniel De Oliveira v. Tenet Healthcare, et al.

Background

Daniel De Oliveira, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a First Amended Complaint on May 27, 2025. The amended complaint sought to add nine defendants to his claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. The proposed defendants included individuals associated with Tenet Healthcare, JAMS, Inc., and Gibbs & Bruns LLP, as well as Drew Harris, an Assistant Attorney General in the Texas Office of the Attorney General.

The defendants opposing the filing argued that De Oliveira was not entitled to amend his complaint automatically under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). They also argued that, if the filing were treated as a request for permission to amend under Rule 15(a)(2), the court should deny permission. De Oliveira had filed five complaints in related cases that had been consolidated for pretrial purposes by Judge Vernon S. Broderick.

The amended complaint did not repeat the allegations against the defendants named in the original complaint. The court nevertheless construed it liberally because De Oliveira was representing himself. It treated the amended complaint as adding claims and parties while leaving the original complaint in place, rather than treating the amended complaint as replacing the original complaint and withdrawing the claims against the original defendants. The court also stated that the amended complaint therefore did not make the previously filed motions to dismiss moot.

Amendment Without Permission

Rule 15(a)(1) permits a party to amend a pleading once without the opposing parties’ consent or court permission within specified time periods. The court rejected Tenet Healthcare’s and Valley Baptist Realty Company, LLC’s argument that the filing was untimely merely because more than 21 days had passed after service of the original complaint. The court explained that a 2023 amendment to Rule 15 clarified that the right to amend continues until 21 days after the earlier of the events listed in Rule 15(a)(1)(B), such as service of a responsive pleading or a motion under Rule 12.

The court then addressed JAMS’s argument that more than 21 days had passed since JAMS was served and filed its motion to dismiss. Courts have disagreed about whether, when several defendants are involved, each defendant receives a separate 21-day period or the period begins when the first defendant takes a qualifying defensive action. The court applied the approach under which the period began with the first motion to dismiss because the amended complaint did not attempt to address arguments in JAMS’s, the Pakis Defendants’, or the Defendant Judges’ motions. Instead, it added new defendants, and the court found no apparent reason why De Oliveira could not have named them earlier.

The court therefore held that De Oliveira no longer had the right to file the amended complaint as a matter of course on May 27, 2025.

Permission to Amend

Because amendment without permission was unavailable, Rule 15(a)(2) required written consent from the opposing parties or court permission. No defendant consented, and De Oliveira did not formally move for permission. The court nevertheless treated the filing as a request for permission because of his status as a self-represented litigant and his earlier motions seeking to add some of the proposed defendants.

The court denied permission because the proposed amendment would be futile. The proposed claims arose from alleged wrongful and fraudulent conduct during litigation and arbitration proceedings. Relying on Second Circuit precedent, the court held that allegations of frivolous, fraudulent, or baseless litigation activity, without more, cannot constitute a RICO predicate act. The court also found that the allegations against each proposed defendant were brief, conclusory, and insufficient to plausibly state a claim for relief.

The court concluded that the proposed RICO claims against the nine new defendants could not proceed and denied leave to amend. In the conclusion, it stated that the First Amended Complaint should be stricken and requested that the Clerk terminate De Oliveira’s earlier motions to add parties.

Review and Disposition

Magistrate Judge Gary Stein treated the decision as a ruling on a non-dispositive pretrial matter. He stated that, if the decision were considered dispositive, he respectfully recommended that the First Amended Complaint be rejected under Rule 15(a). De Oliveira may file objections within 14 days after being served with the decision. The district judge would review a non-dispositive objection under the clearly erroneous or contrary-to-law standard, or conduct a fresh review if the decision were treated as dispositive. The opinion does not state that the district judge had already reviewed or adopted the decision.