Ballentine v. Cares for the Homeless
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-03819
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ballentine v. Cares for the Homeless, Judge Woods deferred the amendment and dismissal issues and directed the clerk to terminate a pending motion.
Quintin J. Ballentine, Cares for the Homeless, and the City of New York, because the order addresses Ballentine’s proposed amendment, Cares for the Homeless’s motion to dismiss, and the City’s upcoming motion deadline.
What happened
In Quintin J. Ballentine v. Cares for the Homeless, et al., Ballentine asked to amend his complaint after the court had denied an earlier amendment request because he had not submitted a proposed amended complaint.
Ballentine then filed an amended complaint without permission, and Cares for the Homeless filed a motion to dismiss. Ballentine later requested permission to amend again and submitted a proposed amended complaint. The court said it would consider the amendment request together with the motion to dismiss rather than decide either issue immediately.
Judge Gregory H. Woods also noted that the City of New York’s motion to dismiss was due December 3, 2025, and said Ballentine could amend without permission within 21 days after that motion was served. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion identified in the order as pending at Docket 33.
The detailed version
- Ballentine v. Cares for the Homeless · No. 1:25-cv-03819
- Gregory Woods
- Nov. 30, 2025
Background
On September 30, 2025, Quintin J. Ballentine requested permission to amend his complaint. The court denied that request without prejudice because he did not file the proposed amended complaint with his request. On October 1, Ballentine filed an amended complaint without obtaining permission from the court.
Cares for the Homeless filed a motion to dismiss on October 23, 2025. Ballentine filed an opposition on November 12. On November 21, Ballentine again requested permission to amend, this time filing a proposed amended complaint.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) generally provides that permission to amend should be freely given when justice requires, but the district court has discretion to grant or deny that permission. The court explained that Ballentine filed the amended complaint after the 21-day period in which a party may amend once without permission and after briefing on the motion to dismiss had progressed. The court therefore chose to consider the amendment request together with Cares for the Homeless’s motion to dismiss.
Ruling and current status
The court did not decide Ballentine’s November 21 request to amend or Cares for the Homeless’s motion to dismiss in this order. It said those matters would be considered together. The court reminded Ballentine that the City of New York’s motion to dismiss was due December 3, 2025, and stated that Ballentine could amend without permission within 21 days after that motion was served. Judge Gregory H. Woods directed the clerk to terminate the motion identified in the order as pending at Docket 33.
The order does not state whether any claim is legally sufficient or whether the complaint should be dismissed. It is therefore a case-management and procedural order rather than a decision on the merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.