Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP

Background

Ashu Shukla, identified as proceeding without a lawyer, sued Deloitte Consulting LLP. The opinion text describes successive complaints filed first in New York state court and later in federal court after Deloitte removed the case. The complaints included allegations of disability, gender, and national-origin discrimination under New York law, as well as claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

After the case was removed, Shukla filed multiple amended complaints in federal court. The text states that the court partially granted Deloitte’s first motion to dismiss on June 15, 2020, and allowed Shukla to file an amended complaint. Shukla then filed a Third Amended Complaint, which was subject to Deloitte’s pending motion to dismiss.

Deloitte’s request

Deloitte’s September 24, 2020 letter asked the court to prevent Shukla from filing another amended complaint at that time. Deloitte argued that Shukla could no longer amend the complaint automatically under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), because he had already amended in federal court and more than 21 days had passed after Deloitte’s motion to dismiss. Deloitte argued that any further amendment required Deloitte’s consent or the court’s permission under Rule 15(a)(2).

Deloitte also argued that further amendment should be denied because of delay, prejudice, the lack of new information, and the alleged futility of proposed allegations. The letter characterized proposed allegations concerning post-termination conduct, “biochemical/medical manipulation devices,” and witness tampering as irrelevant or irrational. These assertions were Deloitte’s arguments, not findings adopted in the endorsement reproduced here.

Court’s action

The court reviewed the parties’ correspondence and set a briefing schedule. Shukla was required to file his opposition to Deloitte’s motion concerning the Third Amended Complaint by September 28, 2020, and Deloitte was required to file its reply by October 19, 2020. The court further ordered that, if Shukla sought to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, he had to seek leave—that is, permission—from the court through a separate motion properly filed under Rule 15.

This text does not state that the court granted or denied leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, and it does not resolve Deloitte’s pending motion to dismiss or the underlying discrimination claims. The supplied case information identifies Alison Nathan as the judge, but the document is addressed to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron and the reproduced signature is unclear.