Raydo v. City of New York
- Denise Cote
- 1:18-cv-10919
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Raydo v. City of New York, Judge Cote denied the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the judgment and add two police officers.
The ruling affected Melanie Raydo and Daniel Lang, whose request to set aside the judgment, add Officers Joseph Vincent and James Shouldis, or resume discovery was denied. The existing judgment for the defendants remained in place.
What happened
In Raydo v. City of New York, Melanie Raydo and Daniel Lang sued the City, Officer Eric Rodriguez, and unidentified police officers under a federal civil-rights law. The court had already granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and entered judgment for them.
After judgment, the plaintiffs asked to add Officers Joseph Vincent and James Shouldis, who they said had arrested them, or alternatively to resume discovery to confirm their identities. They also argued that the judgment should be reconsidered because of claimed court error and lack of opportunity to investigate.
Judge Denise Cote denied the motion. She ruled that the plaintiffs had ample time to amend the complaint and pursue discovery before judgment, and had not shown the extraordinary circumstances or serious injustice required to set aside the judgment.
The detailed version
- Raydo v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-10919
- Denise Cote
- Oct. 6, 2020
Background
Melanie Raydo and Daniel Lang brought this civil-rights action under Section 1983 against the City of New York, Police Officer Eric Rodriguez, and unidentified police officers. The opinion states that Raydo and Lang were arrested on November 25, 2015, by Officers Joseph Vincent and James Shouldis. Rodriguez first encountered them at the precinct, completed the arrest paperwork, and was listed as the arresting officer in the reports. The criminal charges were later dismissed after the District Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute.
The plaintiffs filed the action on November 21, 2018. The City provided them with Vincent’s and Shouldis’s names. Under the Southern District of New York’s Local Civil Rule 83.10, plaintiffs could amend their complaint to name additional defendants without court permission if they did so within six weeks after the first defendant answered. The plaintiffs did not amend within that period or seek permission before the post-judgment motion.
The parties participated in required mediation on July 19, 2019, but it was unsuccessful. Discovery could then proceed. The plaintiffs were deposed, but they did not depose Rodriguez or anyone else. At an October 25, 2019 conference, the court and the lawyers discussed completing discovery and preparing the case. The defendants said they intended to seek summary judgment, but the plaintiffs did not ask to amend the complaint or request more time for discovery.
The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims on December 6, 2019. In opposing that motion, the plaintiffs requested discovery concerning their claim against the City under Monell v. Department of Social Services and concerning the identities and involvement of the unidentified officers. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants in its May 20, 2020 opinion, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law negligent-hiring claim, and judgment was entered on May 21, 2020.
Post-Judgment Motion
On June 3, 2020, the plaintiffs moved for permission to amend their complaint to add Vincent and Shouldis as defendants. Alternatively, they asked to reinstate discovery to confirm that those officers were the people who arrested them. Their briefing also referred to Rules 54(b), 59(e), and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and described the request as one for reconsideration. They withdrew a separate request to add a claim for evidence fabrication.
Because judgment had already been entered, the court treated the motion as a request to set aside the May 21 judgment under Rules 59(e) and 60(b). Rule 54(b) did not apply. The court explained that a party seeking to amend a complaint after judgment must first obtain relief from the judgment. Rule 59(e) permits relief only for an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. Rule 60(b)(6), the catch-all provision invoked by the plaintiffs, requires extraordinary circumstances and an extreme and undue hardship not covered by the other grounds listed in the rule.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the plaintiffs had not shown manifest injustice or extraordinary circumstances. They had received Vincent’s and Shouldis’s names before mediation, had opportunities to amend their complaint, and had opportunities to seek discovery. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ assertion that no conference had occurred before the summary-judgment motion. It found that the October 25 conference had occurred, that plaintiffs’ counsel attended, and that counsel did not request more time for discovery or permission to amend.
The court further ruled that there was no need to vacate the judgment to confirm Vincent’s and Shouldis’s identities because the defendants had never disputed that those officers had taken the plaintiffs into custody. The court also explained that the local rule’s discovery stay ended when mediation concluded, and that counsel’s misunderstanding of the rule did not establish manifest injustice or justify relief from the judgment.
Disposition
Judge Denise Cote denied the plaintiffs’ June 3 motion. The opinion does not state that the court vacated the judgment or permitted the complaint to be amended.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.