Koller-Gurgigno v. Gurgigno

Background

Marlaina Koller-Gurgigno brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law against the City of Yonkers, Police Officer Vincent Gurgigno, Jr., Sergeant James McGovern, Police Officer Patrick Salierno, and Lieutenant Jeremiah Foley. The case concerned two alleged incidents: a March 19, 2016, domestic dispute involving Koller-Gurgigno and Officer Gurgigno, and a May 19, 2016, incident after which Koller-Gurgigno alleged that Officer Gurgigno, his parents, and members of the Yonkers Police Department falsely arrested, imprisoned, and maliciously prosecuted her without probable cause.

The court’s May 11, 2018, scheduling order required any motion to amend or add parties to be filed by June 11, 2018. The parties later received four extensions for discovery, but no extension of the amendment deadline was requested or granted. On June 18, 2020, Koller-Gurgigno moved for leave to file an amended complaint.

Proposed Amendment

The proposed amended complaint would have added a § 1983 claim against Sergeant McGovern. It alleged that, on the night of the alleged rape, McGovern violated substantive due process by increasing the danger that Officer Gurgigno would harm Koller-Gurgigno, declining to arrest him, failing to offer protective services to Koller-Gurgigno and her children, and telling her that she would have to remain at the residence with Officer Gurgigno if she wanted to stay with her children.

The proposed amendment also withdrew several state-law claims and corrected a chronology error. Koller-Gurgigno explained that the new claim was based on facts already alleged in the original complaint and did not rely on new facts learned through discovery. She sought the amendment after defendants argued in a pre-motion letter that her state-law civil-rape claim concerning the March 19, 2016, events should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Legal Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally provides that courts should freely allow amendments when justice requires. But when a party seeks amendment after a scheduling-order deadline, Rule 16(b)(4) requires a showing of good cause and the judge’s consent. Good cause primarily depends on the moving party’s diligence. A court may deny amendment for lack of diligence even without prejudice to the opposing party.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Briccetti concluded that Koller-Gurgigno had not shown diligence or good cause. She gave no explanation for failing to seek amendment or an extension before the June 11, 2018, deadline. Her stated reason—that she had not previously identified additional police officers she intended to add as defendants—did not explain why she waited until 2020 to assert a new theory based on facts already pleaded.

The court also rejected counsel’s failure to think of the § 1983 claim earlier as a sufficient justification. Because Koller-Gurgigno acknowledged that the proposed claim relied on facts known and alleged before the deadline, the court found that the required diligence was absent. The court therefore exercised its discretion to deny leave to amend.

Disposition

The motion for leave to file an amended complaint was DENIED. The court instructed the Clerk to terminate the motion. The order also set deadlines for defendants’ summary-judgment motion, Koller-Gurgigno’s opposition, and defendants’ reply, if any. The opinion did not decide the merits of the proposed § 1983 claim.