Mitchell v. Kurkowski

Background

Adam Mitchell filed this action on February 25, 2022. All named defendants except VSM Real Estate, LLC moved to dismiss. On November 23, 2022, Judge John R. Tunheim granted those defendants’ motion and entered judgment as to them, but stayed entry of judgment dismissing the case for 30 days so Mitchell could file a motion to amend under Local Rule 15.1. Judge Tunheim also gave Mitchell 30 days to show cause why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice as to VSM Real Estate, LLC, for failure to serve the complaint.

Mitchell filed a Motion to Amend and a First Amended Complaint on December 27, 2022. He did not file a version of the proposed amended complaint showing, through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or another effective method, how it differed from the original complaint, as required by Local Rule 15.1(b). He also did not simultaneously file a notice of hearing or memorandum of law, as required by Local Rule 7.1(b)(1). Mitchell stated that he had not met and conferred with the defendants because he believed the earlier conference about the motion to dismiss was sufficient and that Judge Tunheim’s order had permitted the amendment motion.

After the court set a briefing schedule, Mitchell filed a notice of hearing, memorandum, and purported redline version on January 9, 2023. The court found that the purported redline did not show changes between the complaints. Mitchell’s counsel later acknowledged that the failure to preserve the redlining was an oversight and that there was no excuse for failing to comply with the local rules.

Arguments and analysis

The defendants argued that the Motion to Amend should be denied because Mitchell did not timely comply with Local Rules 7.1 and 15.1 or with Judge Tunheim’s November 23 order. They also argued that the proposed First Amended Complaint should be denied as futile, meaning that the proposed claims would still fail legally even if the amendment were allowed.

The court agreed that December 27, 2022 was the deadline for filing the motion because the original 30-day period ended on a court holiday and was extended under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a). But the court concluded that Mitchell had not filed a motion complying with Local Rule 15.1 by that deadline. The court also found violations of Local Rule 7.1, including failure to file the hearing notice and supporting memorandum simultaneously with the motion and failure to meet and confer about the proposed amendment. Judge Tunheim’s permission to seek amendment did not excuse compliance with those rules.

The court noted that district courts may deny leave to amend when the party seeking amendment fails to follow procedural rules or provide a proper proposed pleading. It also discussed Rule 6(b), which permits extensions for good cause or, after a deadline expires, for excusable neglect, but found that Mitchell had not requested such an extension and had not shown those circumstances.

Ruling

The court denied Mitchell’s Motion to Amend the Complaint. It also struck the First Amended Complaint filed as Docket Entry 19. Because the motion was denied on procedural grounds, the court did not reach the defendants’ arguments that the proposed amendment would be futile. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright.