Dikambi v. City University of New York

Background

Judith Sandrine Dikambi sued the City University of New York (CUNY) and Dr. Carlton J. Adams, alleging gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and unlawful retaliation under federal and state law. CUNY moved to dismiss the claims against it. Dikambi then filed a first amended complaint and later filed a second amended complaint without defendants’ consent or the court’s prior permission.

The court ordered Dikambi to ask formally for permission to file the second amended complaint and to explain why permission should not be denied because of issues such as futility, bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice. CUNY opposed the request. Adams also opposed it, arguing that the amendment was prejudicial and made in bad faith. Both defendants argued that the amendment would be futile because it would not correct deficiencies identified in CUNY’s motion to dismiss.

Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), courts should generally allow a party to amend a pleading when justice requires. A court may deny permission for a valid reason, including futility, bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice. Mere delay alone is not enough.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that allowing the amendment would not cause undue delay or prejudice. CUNY did not claim that the amendment would prejudice it or that Dikambi acted in bad faith. The court rejected Adams’s bad-faith argument because Dikambi offered a valid explanation for the amendment: adding facts addressing pleading deficiencies raised in Adams’s motion to dismiss.

The court also found no undue prejudice to Adams. The proposed additional allegations were not particularly complex, and Adams had described the second amended complaint as nearly identical to the first amended complaint. The court therefore determined that responding to the amendment would not require significant additional resources or substantially delay the case.

The court declined to decide at this stage whether the second amended complaint stated claims on which relief could be granted. It stated that question would be decided when the court considered defendants’ renewed motions to dismiss.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. The court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss as moot, without prejudice to refile. Defendants were ordered to file answers or renewed motions to dismiss by December 14, 2020. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the specified docket items.