Jane Doe v. NYS Dept. of Labor
- Nelson Roman
- 7:19-cv-02427
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 25
In Jane Doe v. NYS Dept. of Labor, Judge Roman denied Jane Doe’s request to reopen the case and add new claims against new defendants.
Jane Doe and the New York State Department of Labor; the order also concerns Jane Doe’s proposed claims against new defendants, whom the opinion does not identify.
What happened
In Jane Doe v. NYS Dept. of Labor, Jane Doe asked to reopen the case and amend her complaint to add new claims against new defendants. She had previously voluntarily dismissed the case against the New York State Department of Labor without prejudice.
The court denied the application. It said that Jane Doe must start a new lawsuit if she wants to pursue the new claims.
Judge Roman directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and mail a copy of the order to Jane Doe, whom the order identifies as representing herself. The court did not decide the merits of the proposed claims.
The detailed version
- Jane Doe v. NYS Dept. of Labor · No. 7:19-cv-02427
- Nelson Roman
- Aug. 19, 2020
Background
The court reviewed Jane Doe’s emergency motion to reopen the case and obtain permission to amend the complaint. The opinion states that on August 28, 2019, Jane Doe filed a notice voluntarily dismissing the action against the New York State Department of Labor under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). The dismissal was without prejudice.
Jane Doe’s new application sought to assert new claims against new defendants. The opinion does not decide whether those proposed claims have merit.
Ruling
The court denied the application. It explained that Jane Doe could pursue the new claims only by starting a new action, rather than reopening this case to add them.
Effect of the Order
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 16. The Clerk was also directed to mail a copy of the endorsement to Jane Doe, whom the order identifies as representing herself, and file proof of service. The court did not reach the underlying legal questions raised in the proposed new claims.
Read the full 25-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.