Thomas v. Mercy College
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-03584
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Thomas v. Mercy College, Judge Briccetti granted leave to amend and denied Mercy College’s judgment-on-the-pleadings motion without prejudice.
The order allowed Thomas and Vazquez to substitute Noah Zacco as a named plaintiff and file a second amended complaint, while requiring Mercy College to respond to that complaint and denying its pleadings motion without prejudice.
What happened
In Thomas v. Mercy College, Nickesha Thomas and Cindy Vazquez sued Mercy College on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated people. Mercy College asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing in part that Vazquez had not suffered financial harm because she withdrew before the Spring 2020 semester ended.
The plaintiffs asked to replace Vazquez with Noah Zacco, who allegedly paid money for that semester. They said the substitution would address at least one problem identified by Mercy College.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti granted permission to file a second amended complaint and required the plaintiffs to file it by November 6, 2020. He denied Mercy College’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without prejudice, and directed Mercy College to respond to the new complaint within 21 days after it was filed.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. Mercy College · No. 7:20-cv-03584
- Vincent Briccetti
- Oct. 30, 2020
Background
Nickesha Thomas and Cindy Vazquez brought the action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Mercy College filed an answer, and the plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint. Mercy College filed an amended answer on October 9, 2020.
On October 16, 2020, Mercy College moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). A judgment-on-the-pleadings motion asks the court to decide the case based on the pleadings filed by the parties. Mercy College raised several grounds, including an argument that Vazquez lacked standing—meaning she had not suffered the required harm—because she withdrew from instruction before the end of the Spring 2020 semester and therefore did not pay or owe tuition or fees for that semester.
The plaintiffs asked for permission to amend again by substituting Noah Zacco for Vazquez as a named plaintiff. They alleged that Zacco paid money out of pocket for the Spring 2020 semester. Mercy College opposed the request.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that permission to amend a complaint should generally be freely given when fairness requires. It identified undue delay, bad faith, prejudice to the opposing party, and a futile amendment as reasons that could justify denying permission.
The court found no undue delay because the plaintiffs sought permission less than two weeks after Mercy College filed its Rule 12(c) motion. It found no bad faith because the proposed substitution would cure at least one deficiency identified in the motion. The court also concluded that the amendment was not futile and would not prejudice Mercy College because the substitution occurred before discovery and before any decision on the judgment-on-the-pleadings motion.
Ruling
The court GRANTED the plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a second amended complaint. It ordered the plaintiffs to file that complaint by November 6, 2020.
The court DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mercy College’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The opinion therefore did not decide the merits of Mercy College’s other arguments against the complaint. Mercy College was directed to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint within 21 days after it was filed. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the motions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.