Aery v. Nohre
- Tony Leung
- 0:22-cv-00491
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Aery v. Nohre, Judge Leung denied Aery’s request to reconsider an order keeping his original complaint operative because amendment procedures were not followed.
James Paul Aery’s amended complaint was treated as filed in error, leaving his original complaint as the operative pleading; the ruling concerned the case involving Kyle Nohre and Beltrami County.
What happened
In Aery v. Nohre, James Paul Aery, who represented himself, asked the court to reconsider an earlier order concerning his amended complaint. The earlier order said the amended complaint was filed in error and that Aery’s original complaint remained the operative pleading.
Aery argued that an August 5 order had allowed him to amend his complaint. The court explained that the August order only extended the deadline to request permission to amend; it did not allow him to file an amended complaint without following the required procedures. Those procedures included properly seeking permission and providing the required comparison showing the changes.
The court concluded that Aery had not shown the compelling circumstances required for reconsideration and denied his letter request. Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung signed the order.
The detailed version
- Aery v. Nohre · No. 0:22-cv-00491
- Tony Leung
- Oct. 13, 2022
Background
James Paul Aery, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a letter dated September 15, 2022. The court treated the letter as a request to reconsider its September 8, 2022 order.
The September 8 order directed that Aery’s amended complaint be marked as filed in error. It stated that the amended complaint had no effect in the case and that the original complaint remained the operative pleading. The court had explained that there was no indication that the defendants consented to the amendment or that Aery had met and conferred with them about his proposed changes. The court also found that the filing did not comply with the applicable local rules for seeking permission to amend, and that Aery had not provided the filing to the defendants as required by the pretrial scheduling order.
Arguments and Analysis
Aery argued that the September 8 order was inaccurate because an August 5, 2022 order had allowed him to amend his complaint. The court explained that the August 5 order extended the deadline for filing a motion seeking permission to amend the pleadings or add parties from July 1, 2022, to September 2, 2022. It did not permit Aery to file an amended complaint without following the required procedure.
The court also noted that Aery had previously been told that a motion to amend had to include both a copy of the proposed amended pleading and a version showing how it differed from the existing pleading. The court concluded that Aery had not shown the compelling circumstances required to obtain reconsideration under the District of Minnesota’s local rule.
Ruling
The court denied Aery’s letter request for reconsideration, ECF No. 45. The order addressed the filing procedure and the earlier reconsideration request; it did not decide the underlying claims in the complaint. United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.