Wang v. Kongsgaard

Background

Francis Wang moved for permission to amend and supplement his complaint. He sought to drop all state-law claims, replace them with federal civil-rights claims based on alleged racial discrimination in private-property dealings, add his wife, Laura Young, as a plaintiff, and add Martha Kongsgaard’s husband, Peter Goldman, and neighbors Albert Czap and Brian Peletta as defendants. Some proposed allegations concerned events occurring after the original complaint, so Wang relied on the federal rules governing amendments and supplemental pleadings.

The case had been stayed at the pleading stage while a related state-court case proceeded first. Kongsgaard argued that the proposed civil-rights claims were futile, were brought in bad faith, and were unduly delayed because Wang had possessed the emails underlying the new claims for almost a year.

Amendment and Supplementation

The court held that denying leave would require strong evidence of undue delay, bad faith, futility, or prejudice. It found no such evidence in the record. The court explained that, when evaluating a request for leave to amend, it must treat the allegations as true. Kongsgaard had not convincingly explained why the proposed civil-rights claims would be futile if Wang’s allegations were true. The court also found that Wang’s delay did not warrant denial because the motion was not untimely under the federal rules, the case had been stayed, and prejudice had not been shown.

The court therefore granted Wang’s motion for leave to amend and supplement his complaint.

Request to Lift the Stay

Wang also asked the court to lift the stay, which had been entered in May 2019. He argued that his amendments removed claims overlapping with the state case and reduced or eliminated the risk of inconsistent outcomes.

The court recognized that the success of the new civil-rights claims might not depend on the contract- and property-based claims in the state action. But Wang conceded that the two sets of claims arose from the same facts and similar circumstances. Because the cases remained factually overlapping and the state trial was approaching, the court concluded that conserving resources supported keeping the stay in place. The court denied Wang’s request to lift the stay.

Sanctions Request and Disposition

Kongsgaard argued in her opposition that Wang and his attorney should be sanctioned for filing a futile and bad-faith amended complaint. The court said that a sanctions motion must be filed separately, so the request was not properly before it. The court added that sanctions would not be warranted on the current record.

The order thus granted in part Wang’s motion to amend and supplement his complaint and denied his request to lift the stay. The order was issued by Alex G. Tse, United States Magistrate Judge.