O'Brien v. Finkel
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-10488
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In O'Brien v. Finkel, Judge Oetken gave O'Brien another chance to amend her complaint and closed two motions as moot.
Julie K. O'Brien may file a second amended complaint by August 11, 2020. Stuart Finkel may answer or otherwise respond by September 1, 2020. The motions at Docket Numbers 19 and 41 were closed as moot.
What happened
In O'Brien v. Finkel, the court reconsidered an earlier order that had denied Julie K. O'Brien permission to amend her complaint. The court relied on the rule favoring amendments when fairness requires and on a Second Circuit decision emphasizing that disputes should generally be resolved on their merits.
The court found no undue delay, bad faith, improper motive, or futility that would justify denying amendment. It therefore directed O'Brien to file a second amended complaint by August 11, 2020, if she still wished to do so. Stuart Finkel could answer or otherwise respond by September 1, 2020.
Judge Oetken also directed the Clerk to close the motions at Docket Numbers 19 and 41 as moot. The order did not decide the underlying claims or state that either party prevailed on the merits.
The detailed version
- O'Brien v. Finkel · No. 1:19-cv-10488
- James Oetken
- Aug. 5, 2020
Background
The court reconsidered its earlier order denying Julie K. O'Brien leave to amend her complaint. Leave to amend is permission to file a revised complaint. The court considered the Second Circuit's discussion in Loreley, which described Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 as setting a liberal standard: courts should generally allow amendments when justice requires.
Reasoning
The court explained that leave to amend may be denied for undue delay, bad faith, a dilatory motive, or futility, meaning that the proposed amendment could not support a legally viable claim. It found that none of those reasons was present. O'Brien had sought amendment within six months after starting the lawsuit. Although the court viewed the timing of her request as inefficient because she filed it after opposing a motion to dismiss, it found no indication of bad faith or improper delay and did not find that amendment would be futile.
Ruling
The court directed O'Brien to file a second amended complaint by August 11, 2020, if she still wished to amend. It gave Stuart Finkel until September 1, 2020, to answer or otherwise respond. The Clerk was directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 19 and 41 as moot. The order did not resolve the parties' underlying claims.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addressed amendment of the pleadings and the status of pending motions without deciding the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.