Sweigert v. Goodman

Background

On August 18, 2020, plaintiff D. George Sweigert, proceeding without a lawyer, moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling granting defendant Jason Goodman permission to amend Goodman’s counterclaims. The motion challenged both the permission to amend and the court’s description of the parties’ online dispute.

Sweigert argued that the ruling was unfair because the court denied his request to file a second amended complaint while allowing Goodman to amend. He also argued that Goodman received more time to amend than Sweigert had received to amend an earlier pleading. In addition, Sweigert renewed his request to amend claims for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, citing additional examples of online attacks.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Sweigert’s reliance on Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was misguided because that rule concerns changing a final judgment, and no final judgment had been entered in the case. The court nevertheless considered whether there was any other basis for reconsideration.

The court explained that reconsideration is appropriate only when there has been an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence has become available, or reconsideration is needed to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court found that Sweigert had identified none of those grounds.

The court rejected the argument that the parties had been treated unfairly based on the number of amendments. It stated that permission to amend depends on whether the proposed amendment would be futile, meaning unable to succeed, and that the number of earlier amendments is not necessarily decisive. The court also listed at least four actual or proposed pleadings submitted by Sweigert that it had reviewed for possible success.

The court further found no unfairness in the deadlines given to Goodman. It stated that the time allowed reflected the court’s assessment of what was sufficient, including the possible effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on a litigant’s ability to prepare and send filings.

As to the emotional-distress claims, the court said it had previously denied further permission to amend because Sweigert’s submissions did not show even a possibility of satisfying the claims’ elements, including severe emotional distress. The court found that the new motion supplied no supporting information and stated that additional facts would not justify reconsideration unless they could not previously have been discovered.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that the motion for reconsideration be DENIED. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Sweigert and Goodman, note service on the docket, and terminate the pending motion at docket entry 141.