Jacqueline C. v. Kijakazi
- John Tunheim
- 0:21-cv-01612
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Jacqueline C. v. Kijakazi, Judge Bowbeer denied Jacqueline C.’s motion to add a federal-appointment claim because she did not show good cause for delay.
Jacqueline C.’s request to add a Federal Vacancies Reform Act claim was denied; the order did not decide the merits of her disability claim or proposed appointment-related claim.
What happened
In Jacqueline C. v. Kijakazi, Jacqueline C. asked to amend her complaint to add a claim under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, a law governing certain federal appointments. She based the proposed claim on a recent decision by another magistrate judge in a different case involving an administrative law judge’s authority to decide Social Security applications.
The Commissioner opposed the request, arguing that Jacqueline C. waited too long, the case was already at an advanced stage, and changing the complaint would disrupt the schedule. The court agreed that the request required a showing of good cause and found that Jacqueline C. had not acted diligently. The court said the recent decision was not a change in the law because the relevant statute, facts, and Supreme Court decision had existed before she filed her appeal.
The court denied the motion to amend the complaint and did not reach whether the amendment would prejudice the Commissioner. Judge Bowbeer did not decide whether Jacqueline C.’s disability claim or proposed appointment-related claim was legally valid.
The detailed version
- Jacqueline C. v. Kijakazi · No. 0:21-cv-01612
- John Tunheim
- Feb. 24, 2022
Background
Jacqueline C. filed a complaint challenging the administrative law judge’s decision on her disability claim, alleging that substantial evidence did not support that decision. She later moved to amend the complaint to add a claim under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). The proposed claim was based on a recent decision in Brian T. D. v. Kijakazi, in which another magistrate judge held that an acting commissioner could not effectively ratify the appointment of certain administrative law judges under the FVRA.
Jacqueline C. filed the amendment request after she had already moved for summary judgment and while the Commissioner’s summary-judgment motion and briefing were underway. The Commissioner opposed the amendment, arguing that Jacqueline C. had not been diligent, that the case was at an advanced stage, and that there was no good cause to change the case schedule.
Legal standard
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally allows amendments with the court’s permission when the opposing party does not consent. But because the proposed amendment would require changing the existing schedule, Rule 16 also required Jacqueline C. to show “good cause.” The main measure of good cause is the moving party’s diligence. A change in law, newly discovered facts, or another significant changed circumstance can support good cause. If the party does not show diligence, the court does not need to consider prejudice to the opposing party.
Analysis
The court agreed that the good-cause standard applied because summary-judgment briefing was already underway and the amendment would require additional briefing. It found that Jacqueline C. had not shown the required diligence.
The court rejected the argument that the recent Brian T. D. decision was a change in the law. According to the court, the relevant statute, the underlying facts, and the Supreme Court’s decision holding that FVRA challenges are not waived merely because they were not raised during the administrative proceedings had existed before Jacqueline C. filed her appeal. The court also noted that other litigants and lawyers had raised similar challenges earlier.
The court clarified that it was not relying on the Commissioner’s argument that Jacqueline C. had waived the FVRA claim by omitting it from her opening summary-judgment brief. The court stated that filing a motion to amend, rather than inserting a new unpleaded claim into summary-judgment briefing, was the proper procedure. If good cause had been shown, the court would have set a schedule for supplemental briefing.
Disposition
The court found that Jacqueline C. had failed to show diligence and therefore could not satisfy Rule 16’s good-cause requirement. It denied Jacqueline C.’s Motion to Amend the Complaint. The order did not decide the merits of the disability claim or the proposed FVRA claim, and it did not reach the question of prejudice.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.