Kasso v. City of Minneapolis
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-02782
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Kasso v. City of Minneapolis, Judge Leung denied without prejudice motions to change deadlines and amend the complaint, allowing refiling.
Leila Kasso’s motions to modify the pretrial scheduling order and amend the existing amended complaint were denied without prejudice. She was allowed until June 14, 2024, to refile the motion for permission to amend.
What happened
Kasso v. City of Minneapolis concerns Leila Kasso’s requests to change the pretrial schedule and amend her existing amended complaint. She represented herself, so the court read her filings generously but reminded her that she still had to follow court rules and orders.
The court identified several problems with the filings. Kasso did not clearly state how much additional time she wanted, and the court found no indication that she had discussed changing the schedule with the defendants. Her request to amend also lacked a proposed new complaint and a marked version showing the changes. The court explained that a new complaint would need to replace, rather than supplement, the existing amended complaint.
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung denied both motions without prejudice, meaning Kasso could file them again after correcting the problems. The order gave her until June 14, 2024, to refile her motion for permission to amend the complaint and left earlier consistent orders in effect.
The detailed version
- Kasso v. City of Minneapolis · No. 0:23-cv-02782
- Katherine Menendez
- May 22, 2024
Background
Leila Kasso, who was representing herself, filed motions to modify the pretrial scheduling order and to amend the existing amended complaint. The court stated that it would read her submissions liberally because she was not represented by a lawyer, but also reminded her that self-represented litigants must comply with applicable rules, laws, and court orders.
Problems identified by the court
The court explained that Local Rule 7.1 requires a party bringing a civil motion to make a good-faith effort to resolve the issues with the opposing party before filing. For a non-dispositive motion—a motion that does not finally decide a claim—the rule also requires the party to schedule a hearing and file specified materials, including a notice of hearing, legal memorandum, supporting materials, a meet-and-confer statement when required, and a proposed order.
The court understood Kasso to be seeking more time for fact discovery in connection with a possible amendment to her complaint. It found that she had not clearly stated how much additional time she wanted and that the filings did not show she had tried to meet and confer with the defendants about changing the pretrial schedule.
The court also explained that Local Rule 15.1 requires a motion to amend a pleading to include both a complete proposed amended pleading and a version showing the changes from the current pleading. Kasso’s motion did not include a proposed amended pleading. The court stated that any proposed Second Amended Complaint must be a new pleading that fully replaces the existing Amended Complaint, rather than merely adding material to it.
Kasso also requested a hearing. The court explained that she could contact the chambers of the magistrate judge to obtain a hearing date, but would then have to file and serve notice of that date with her motion. The court further advised that it could cancel the hearing and decide the motion based on the written filings.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung denied Kasso’s motions, ECF Nos. 40 and 42, without prejudice. The court gave her until June 14, 2024, to refile her motion for permission to amend the Amended Complaint. The order did not state that the court granted permission to amend the complaint or changed the scheduling order. It also provided that prior consistent orders remained in effect and warned that violations could lead to remedies or sanctions, including costs, attorney fees, limits on evidence, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.