Favors v. Synchrony Bank
- John Tunheim
- 0:21-cv-02473
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Favors v. Synchrony Bank, Judge Leung granted one pleading motion and denied another without prejudice because the filings did not follow required procedures.
Joseph Anthony Favors and Synchrony Bank; the order allowed Favors’s proposed Second Amended Complaint to be filed but denied his proposed supplemental pleading without prejudice.
What happened
In Favors v. Synchrony Bank, Joseph Anthony Favors asked to change his pleadings through an amended complaint and a supplemental filing. He represented himself, and Synchrony Bank did not object to the first motion.
The court explained that Local Rule 15.1 required an amended pleading and a version showing what changed. Favors did not provide the required comparison for his first motion, and his second filing did not include a proposed pleading, clearly identify a new defendant, or clearly connect its allegations to the earlier claims. The court said his self-represented status did not excuse compliance with the rules.
Judge Leung granted the first motion and directed the clerk to file the proposed pleading as the Second Amended Complaint. He denied the second motion without prejudice, meaning the ruling did not bar a properly filed future motion, and cautioned that future filings must follow the applicable rules.
The detailed version
- Favors v. Synchrony Bank · No. 0:21-cv-02473
- John Tunheim
- May 9, 2022
Background
The court considered two motions by pro se plaintiff Joseph Anthony Favors: a “First Motion for Leave to File for Reconsideration After Time Allowed,” ECF No. 11, and a “First Supplemental Pleadings But Which Relates Back to Original Incidents Motion,” ECF No. 24. Favors sought to alter his pleadings through amendment or supplementation. No hearing was held.
Reasoning
Local Rule 15.1 requires a motion to amend a pleading to include both the proposed amended pleading and a version showing how it differs from the operative pleading. Neither motion complied fully with that rule.
Favors’s first motion included a proposed Second Amended Complaint, but it did not include the required version showing the changes from the Amended Complaint. His second motion sought to add a defendant and incidents occurring after the complaint was filed, but it provided no proposed amended pleading. Instead, it included paragraphs that did not clearly correspond to the numbered claims in the earlier pleadings, and it did not identify the proposed new defendant. The court concluded that this improperly required the court and Synchrony Bank to determine how the new material fit into the earlier pleadings.
The court held that Favors’s pro se status did not excuse compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the District of Minnesota’s Local Rules. It stated that his failure to comply with Local Rule 15.1 alone was enough to deny the motions. However, because Synchrony Bank had treated the proposed Second Amended Complaint as the operative pleading in its motion to dismiss and had not objected to Favors’s first motion, the court granted that motion.
Ruling
The court GRANTED Favors’s first motion, ECF No. 11, and directed the clerk to file ECF No. 11-1 as the Second Amended Complaint. It DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Favors’s second motion, ECF No. 24, as procedurally improper. The court cautioned that future motions to amend or supplement must comply with all applicable procedural rules and listed possible remedies for violations, including sanctions, striking pleadings, dismissal, or default judgment.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.