Daly v. Westchester County Board of Legislators
- Philip Halpern
- 7:19-cv-04642
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Daly v. Westchester County Board of Legislators, Judge Halpern denied Daly’s motion to file a Third Amended Complaint, leaving the Second Amended Complaint operative.
Dante E. Daly and Westchester County Board of Legislators; the proposed Third Amended Complaint was not allowed, and the Second Amended Complaint remains operative.
What happened
Daly v. Westchester County Board of Legislators concerns Dante E. Daly’s request to amend his pleading again after the defendant opposed that request. The court treated Daly’s request for a preliminary conference as a motion to amend.
Daly said he wanted to add evidence, clarify his claims, address defenses, and explain the legal basis for claims involving disability discrimination. He also referred to evidence from the Social Security Administration and other sources. The court considered his request, the proposed Third Amended Complaint, and the defendant’s opposition.
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied leave to file the Third Amended Complaint because, under the circumstances, justice did not require another amendment. The Second Amended Complaint remains the operative pleading, and the court said Daly could present additional supporting evidence later on summary judgment or at trial.
The detailed version
- Daly v. Westchester County Board of Legislators · No. 7:19-cv-04642
- Philip Halpern
- Apr. 26, 2021
Background
Dante E. Daly sought permission to file a Third Amended Complaint. The court construed his request for a pre-motion conference as the motion itself. Daly said the proposed amendment would add evidence, clarify his claims, address the defendant’s affirmative defenses, and explain the statutory basis for his disability-discrimination allegations. He also identified evidence from the Social Security Administration and other individuals and entities.
The court considered Daly’s request, the proposed Third Amended Complaint, and the defendant’s opposition. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a court should generally allow amendment when justice requires it.
Ruling
The court denied Daly’s motion to amend. It concluded that the circumstances did not require allowing a Third Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint therefore remains the operative pleading in the action.
The court stated that, to the extent Daly wanted to support claims that had survived the defendant’s motion to dismiss with additional evidence, he would have an opportunity to present that evidence on a motion for summary judgment or at trial. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion sequence pending at Document 107.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.