Wimberly v. automotive Mastermind, Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-01870-JGK
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wimberly v. Automotivemastermind, Judge Koeltl changed dismissals with prejudice to without prejudice and set deadlines for an amended complaint.
Jason Wimberly may reassert claims in an amended complaint if he can do so in good faith. The defendants may answer or move to dismiss that complaint under the deadlines set by the court.
What happened
In Wimberly v. Automotivemastermind Inc. et al., Jason Wimberly asked the court to reconsider parts of an earlier judgment that had dismissed claims with prejudice, meaning they could not be brought again. The opinion identifies Wimberly as representing himself.
The court changed those dismissals to dismissals without prejudice, allowing Wimberly to reassert claims in an amended complaint if he could do so in good faith after considering the court’s earlier reasoning. The court extended the deadline for that complaint to March 23, 2021, and set deadlines for the defendants’ response and Wimberly’s reply. The court also directed Wimberly to submit proposed redacted and unredacted copies of his motion to seal or redact.
Judge John G. Koeltl issued the order on February 24, 2021. He directed the clerk to close Docket Nos. 48 and 49 and mail the order to Wimberly.
The detailed version
- Wimberly v. automotive Mastermind, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-01870-JGK
- John Koeltl
- Feb. 24, 2021
Background
Jason Wimberly moved under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to alter or vacate the court’s judgment. He sought reconsideration of claims that the court had dismissed with prejudice. The opinion says that Wimberly was proceeding without a lawyer.
Ruling on the dismissed claims
The court cited appellate decisions stating that courts generally should freely allow amendment of complaints and should give a self-represented litigant a reasonable opportunity to show that a valid claim can be stated. Based on that principle, the court amended its dismissal of any claims that had been dismissed with prejudice so that those claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court stated that Wimberly could reassert claims in an amended complaint that could be asserted in good faith, after considering the reasoning in the court’s prior opinion.
The court extended the deadline for Wimberly to file an amended complaint to March 23, 2021. The defendants could answer or move to dismiss the amended complaint by April 23, 2021, and Wimberly could reply by May 7, 2021.
Motion to seal or redact and docket instructions
Wimberly also filed a motion to seal or redact his motion in Electronic Court Filing No. 49. The court directed him to submit directly to the court a proposed redacted copy and an unredacted copy, identifying the portions he wanted redacted from the publicly filed copy. The clerk was directed to close Docket Nos. 48 and 49 and mail a copy of the order to Wimberly.
Disposition
The order changed the prior dismissals with prejudice to dismissals without prejudice, extended the amended-complaint deadline, gave instructions concerning the proposed redactions, and directed the clerk to close the two docket entries. Judge John G. Koeltl signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.