David P. v. Kijakazi
- Tony Leung
- 0:20-cv-01586
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In David P. v. Kijakazi, Judge Leung denied David P.’s motion to amend because it violated local rules, was delayed, and would prejudice the Commissioner.
David P.’s request to amend his Social Security complaint was denied; the Commissioner’s opposition to the amendment was accepted.
What happened
David P. asked to amend his complaint in David P. v. Kijakazi to add claims challenging the appointment and reappointment of Social Security officials and administrative law judges. The Commissioner objected, arguing that the request was untimely.
The court found that David P. did not follow local filing rules because he filed required materials separately and did not timely provide all required documents. The court also found undue delay because the proposed claims could have been raised when the case began, and prejudice because the parties had already completed briefing on summary judgment.
The court denied the motion to amend. United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung ruled that the failure to follow the local rules alone was sufficient and that the delay and resulting prejudice independently supported denial.
The detailed version
- David P. v. Kijakazi · No. 0:20-cv-01586
- Tony Leung
- Feb. 28, 2022
Background
David P. moved to amend his complaint. The proposed amendment would have added claims asserting that the administrative law judge who decided his Social Security claim was not properly appointed under the Supreme Court’s decision in Lucia v. SEC, that a later re-ratification by then-Acting Commissioner Nancy A. Berryhill was ineffective under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and that the Act was unconstitutional as applied to Berryhill’s reappointment attempt. The Commissioner objected that the motion was untimely.
Reasons for Denial
The court first held that the motion did not comply with the District of Minnesota’s local rules. Local Rule 15.1 required an amendment motion to include both a proposed amended pleading and a version showing how it differed from the existing pleading. Local Rule 7.1 also required specified motion materials—including the meet-and-confer statement and proposed order—to be filed and served at the same time as a non-dispositive motion. David P.’s motion, memorandum, and counsel’s affidavit were filed on January 27, 2022. About a week later, he filed the meet-and-confer statement, proposed amended pleadings, and proposed order. The court stated that this failure to comply with the local rules was independently sufficient to deny the motion.
The court also found undue delay and prejudice. Although the motion was filed within seven days after another decision that prompted it, the proposed claims concerned events that occurred before David P. filed this lawsuit. David P. did not explain why he could not have raised those claims at the beginning of the litigation in 2020. The court noted that he was represented by counsel and that the existence of more favorable authority issued later did not establish reasonable diligence. The court therefore found that the approximately 18-month delay was undue.
The court further found that allowing the amendment would cause significant prejudice because the parties had already fully briefed cross-motions for summary judgment under the court’s schedule. Permitting new issues would require another round of briefing and delay resolution of the matter.
Disposition
The court ordered that David P.’s Motion to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 22, was DENIED. The order addressed the request to amend and did not decide the merits of the proposed appointment or Federal Vacancies Reform Act claims. Judge Tony N. Leung signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.