Hari v. Stuart

Background

Michael B. Hari filed the action on May 20, 2019, and later amended his complaint once as a matter of right. He then sought permission to file a second amended complaint. The court had previously denied an attempted amendment because Hari had not filed a formal motion, obtained opposing counsel’s consent, or submitted a version showing the proposed changes as required by local rules.

Hari filed a new motion for leave to amend on September 25, 2019. The court directed him to submit a marked-up version of the proposed complaint. The court received that version six days after the deadline in its order. The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that the filing was untimely, would cause undue delay, lacked sufficient justification, and reflected bad faith.

Hari also asked for permission to file a reply brief concerning his earlier motions to compel and for sanctions. The court had already denied those motions. A footnote explains that the earlier denials were without prejudice so the parties could meet and confer about those issues.

Analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which generally allows amendment with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s permission after the initial amendment period. Leave may be denied for compelling reasons, including undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to correct deficiencies, undue prejudice, or futility. Futility means the proposed amendment could not survive a motion to dismiss.

The court excused the six-day delay, noting that it was short and could have resulted from prison-mail delays. Because Hari sought amendment before the scheduling-order deadline, the court held that he did not need to show the stronger “good cause” required for amendments after that deadline. Instead, the court considered whether the interests of justice supported amendment.

The court rejected the defendants’ bad-faith arguments. Their concerns that the proposed complaint might not meet pleading requirements showed, at most, carelessness or negligence—not an intent to deceive, harass, mislead, delay, or disrupt. The court also found that minor inconsistencies in the marked-up complaint did not establish dishonesty. The defendants’ assertion that Hari had clogged the docket or acted with a delaying motive was largely conclusory and did not identify a compelling reason to deny amendment.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Hari’s Motion for Leave to Amend. It ordered him to file his second amended complaint within 21 days of the order’s filing date.

The court DENIED Hari’s Motion for Leave to File Instanter the Plaintiff’s Attached Reply. The request was moot because the motions addressed by the proposed reply had already been decided, and the court separately determined that the reply would not change its analysis.

The order states that all prior consistent orders remain in effect. It also warns that failure to comply with the order or earlier consistent orders could lead to appropriate remedies or sanctions, including costs, fines, attorney’s fees, evidentiary limits, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment. Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung signed the order.