Bailey v. Metropolitan Council
- Donovan Frank
- 0:19-cv-01024
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Bailey v. Metropolitan Council, Judge Leung granted the plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint and defendants’ request for more response time.
Jeffrey L. Bailey and Marlon E. Carter may file a second amended complaint. The defendants received additional time to respond, while their arguments against amendment were not accepted as a basis to deny the motion.
What happened
In Bailey v. Metropolitan Council, Jeffrey L. Bailey and Marlon E. Carter, representing themselves, asked to amend their complaint for a second time. The defendants asked for more time to respond because they misunderstood the court’s briefing instructions and filed their response one day late.
The court considered the defendants’ arguments anyway and found no sufficient reason to deny the amendment. It found no improper delay or bad faith, and declined to decide whether the proposed claims were legally futile because that issue should be considered through the defendants’ expected motions to dismiss.
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung granted both the defendants’ request for more time and the plaintiffs’ second request to amend. The plaintiffs were ordered to file their second amended complaint within 14 days of the order.
The detailed version
- Bailey v. Metropolitan Council · No. 0:19-cv-01024
- Donovan Frank
- Sept. 26, 2019
Background
Jeffrey L. Bailey and Marlon E. Carter sued Metropolitan Council, First Transit, Inc., Tim Ogren, Patricia Vold, Don Johnson, Troy D. Gustafson, Teamsters Local 120, and Dean Vinge. The plaintiffs filed a complaint and then an amended complaint. After several defendants filed motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed a second motion for permission to amend their amended complaint.
The defendants, other than Troy Gustafson and Teamsters Local 120, also moved to extend their time to respond. They said they misunderstood an earlier order and believed the court would issue a separate briefing schedule. Their response was filed one day after the deadline. Both groups of defendants opposed the requested amendment.
Analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, once the period for amending a pleading without permission has passed, a party generally needs the opposing parties’ consent or the court’s permission. Permission should ordinarily be freely given, but may be denied for reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to fix deficiencies, unfair prejudice, or futility. Futility means that the proposed amended pleading could not survive a motion to dismiss.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to extend their response time and considered their opposition despite the late filing. It then rejected the defendants’ arguments against amendment. The court found that the plaintiffs filed their motion before a scheduling deadline for amendments had been set, so the motion did not show undue delay. It also found no evidence that the plaintiffs acted dishonestly or intended to mislead the court. The plaintiffs’ explanation that they discovered a needed correction might show negligence or poor judgment, but it did not establish bad faith.
The court did not decide whether the proposed amendments were futile. It explained that doing so would effectively require deciding the defendants’ anticipated motions to dismiss. Under the district’s procedure, those dispositive motions would be reviewed by the district judge through a report and recommendation from the magistrate judge. Allowing the amendment would permit the parties to address the claims through that process.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung ordered:
- The defendants’ motion to extend their time to respond was GRANTED.
- The plaintiffs’ second motion to amend their amended complaint was GRANTED.
- The plaintiffs were ordered to file their second amended complaint within 14 days of the order.
- Prior consistent orders remained in effect. The order also warned that violations could lead to remedies or sanctions, including costs, fines, attorney fees, evidentiary limits, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment.
The order permitted amendment of the pleadings; it did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or the defendants’ anticipated motions to dismiss.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.