O'Brien v. Finkel

Background

The court reconsidered, on its own initiative, an earlier order denying Julie K. O’Brien leave to amend her complaint. The court focused on the Second Circuit’s discussion in Loreley of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which generally provides that courts should freely allow amendments when justice requires.

Reasoning

The court explained that the preference for allowing amendment reflects a strong preference for resolving disputes on their merits. It stated that a plaintiff should generally be allowed to test claims on the merits if she can plead facts that may support a valid legal remedy.

The court recognized that leave to amend may be denied for undue delay, bad faith, improper motive, or futility. It found that none of those reasons applied here. O’Brien sought leave within six months of commencing the lawsuit, which the court said was not undue delay. Although she filed the request after filing an opposition to the motion to dismiss, the court found no indication of bad faith or improper motive 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 directed Stuart Finkel to answer or otherwise respond by September 1, 2020. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 19 and 41 as moot. The opinion does not expressly state that the earlier order was vacated.

Effect

The order reopened the opportunity for O’Brien to file a second amended complaint and set deadlines for that filing and Finkel’s response. It also ended the court’s consideration of the two identified motions because they were moot.