Waheed v. Rentoulis

Background

The court considered several requests by Plaintiff Sehra Waheed: leave to amend her complaint, two requests to modify the case schedule, and a motion seeking sanctions and to strike a filing. Defendants also requested a conference concerning those motions.

Amendment of the Complaint

The court granted Waheed leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). The Auction Defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that they were not proper parties. The Storage Defendants said they did not oppose the proposed amended complaint but intended to seek dismissal if amendment were allowed. The court found that Defendants had not identified a sufficient reason to deny amendment or shown prejudice from adding the proposed claims.

The court deemed Waheed’s Final Amended Complaint at ECF No. 211 the operative complaint. The opinion states in one section that Defendants’ responses were due October 6, 2025, while the conclusion states that they were due October 8, 2025.

Requests to Change the Case Schedule

The court denied Waheed’s requests to skip any remaining discovery and proceed directly to a final decision on the merits. The court described the existing schedule, which provided deadlines for fact discovery, expert reports, and expert depositions. It also noted that many of the docket entries were filings by Waheed, that some requests had been filed multiple times, and that the late amendment could allow Defendants to seek dismissal and potentially delay the case.

Sanctions and Motion to Strike

The court denied Waheed’s request for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 because she did not file the sanctions request separately and did not serve it on the Storage Defendants at least 21 days before presenting it to the court, as the rule requires.

The court also denied Waheed’s request to strike the Storage Defendants’ supplemental brief and exhibits under Rule 12(f). It explained that the challenged materials were not pleadings covered by that rule. Considering whether the materials should be stricken under the court’s inherent authority, the court found that they were arguably relevant to Waheed’s request for emergency relief and did not appear outside the bounds of legitimate advocacy.

The court further denied sanctions under Rule 37 because fact discovery had closed, Waheed had not sought an extension, and she did not identify a discovery order that Defendants had disobeyed or a properly noticed deposition that a party failed to attend.

Disposition

The court granted leave to amend, deemed the Final Amended Complaint the operative complaint, denied Waheed’s requests to modify the schedule, and denied her motion for sanctions and to strike. It denied Defendants’ request for a conference as moot. The order addressed case-management and motion-related issues and did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.