M. G. v. Cuomo

Background

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action involving people with serious mental illness who were held in New York State custody past their lawful release dates because appropriate community-based housing was unavailable. The original and First Amended Complaints asserted claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The original case included a General Class and a Residential Treatment Facility Subclass. The Residential Treatment Facility Subclass also asserted constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiffs moved to file a Second Amended Complaint. The proposed complaint would add three named plaintiffs—S.D., W.P., and D.H.—as representatives of a proposed Discharge Class. That class would cover people with serious mental illness who were released from state prison without community-based mental-health housing and supportive services for which they were considered eligible, and who lived in segregated settings or faced a serious risk of institutionalization. The proposed complaint would add two causes of action under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act concerning the new plaintiffs and class. It would also update allegations concerning previously named plaintiffs and add other factual allegations.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint remained pending before Judge Cathy Seibel. Plaintiffs argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 applied and that the proposed changes were timely, not made in bad faith, not unduly prejudicial, and not futile. Defendants argued that Rule 16 applied, requiring good cause, and that plaintiffs had not acted diligently. Defendants also argued that the proposed claims were futile and would cause substantial additional discovery and expense.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Rule 15 governed because no scheduling order had been issued. Rule 15 generally requires courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires, absent reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to fix deficiencies, undue prejudice, or futility.

The court found that the earlier deadline discussed at a May 2019 conference concerned the First Amended Complaint and did not definitively bar later amendments. The court noted developments after that deadline, including a New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision memorandum, delays in discovery, and the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 health crisis. The court stated that even if the Rule 16 good-cause standard applied, those circumstances supported good cause.

The court acknowledged that adding the Discharge Class could require defendants to review potentially hundreds of thousands of documents and conduct additional discovery. But the case remained in the pleading and paper-discovery stages, with no deposition deadlines and no imminent trial. The court concluded that the additional work was not sufficiently prejudicial to deny plaintiffs the opportunity to pursue the claims in the same case.

The court declined to decide whether the proposed claims were legally sufficient because Judge Seibel’s motion to dismiss was pending. It recognized that the proposed claims changed the case’s focus, but found that the alleged violations concerning institutionalization and community-based services were sufficiently related to the existing claims to be considered together. The court also stated that judicial efficiency favored having the same judge decide whether the old and new claims would survive a motion to dismiss.

Disposition

The court granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend. Plaintiffs were directed to serve and file the Second Amended Complaint within seven days. The order did not resolve the pending motion to dismiss or determine the merits of the claims.