Tealeh v. DeJoy
- Joan Ericksen
- 0:21-cv-01318
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Tealeh v. DeJoy, Judge Foster denied without prejudice Tealeh’s amendment motion because it lacked required redlines and a proper meet-and-confer.
Flomo Tealeh’s request to amend his claims was denied without prejudice. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy remained the opposing party, and any renewed amendment would have to comply with the local rules and the court’s earlier limits on the claims.
What happened
In Tealeh v. DeJoy, Flomo Tealeh sought to change his claims under Title VII, the federal workplace-discrimination law. His existing claims against Postmaster General Louis DeJoy involved disparate treatment, retaliation, and a hostile work environment.
The court said Tealeh did not provide a version of his proposed amendment showing every change from his existing complaint. The court also found that he had not properly discussed the specific proposed changes with DeJoy’s lawyer before filing the motion.
The court denied the motion without prejudice, meaning the motion could be filed again if the local filing and discussion requirements were met. Judge Dulce J. Foster also cautioned that any new amendment must follow the court’s earlier limits on which claims could proceed.
The detailed version
- Tealeh v. DeJoy · No. 0:21-cv-01318
- Joan Ericksen
- Nov. 9, 2022
Background
Flomo Tealeh brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Postmaster General Louis DeJoy and two other defendants. His claims included disparate treatment, retaliation, and hostile work environment. The court previously dismissed all claims against the other two defendants and limited which allegations involving DeJoy could be asserted.
Tealeh later filed a motion to amend his claims. The court had previously denied an earlier motion to supplement because Tealeh had not followed the District of Minnesota’s local rules, including the requirement to provide a redlined proposed amended complaint. The court had warned him that future requests to add claims had to comply with those rules.
Reasons for the ruling
Local Rule 15.1(b) requires a motion to amend a pleading to include both the proposed amended pleading and a version showing, through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or another effective method, every change from the existing pleading. Tealeh did not provide the required comparison version. The court said that without it, the court could not clearly determine how he wanted to change his complaint.
Local Rule 7.1(a) also requires the moving party, when possible, to meet and confer with the opposing party in good faith before filing a motion to amend. The court found that Tealeh had not shown that he gave DeJoy’s lawyer advance notice of the specific proposed amendment or discussed whether DeJoy would oppose that amendment. A discussion about the deadline for amended pleadings during another meeting did not satisfy this requirement.
Disposition
The court denied Tealeh’s Motion to Amend Claims without prejudice. The court stated that Tealeh could refile if he complied with the local rules by preparing a comprehensive redlined version, providing it to DeJoy’s attorney, and discussing the proposed amendment with defense counsel before filing. The court cautioned that any amendment must also comply with the earlier ruling limiting claims based on Tealeh’s prior administrative complaints; claims the court had already found barred would be denied as futile. The order was signed by Dulce J. Foster, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.