Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 21, 2022

Brock v. The City of New York

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:21-cv-11094
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Brock v. The City of New York, Magistrate Judge Aaron denied Brock’s motion to amend without prejudice because he did not provide a proposed amended complaint.

Who this affects

Mandela Brock and Avo Shopping Company were affected: the court did not allow Brock to add Avo Shopping Company through the motion he submitted, but directed Brock how to submit a further amendment request.

What happened

In Brock v. The City of New York, Mandela Brock asked to amend his complaint again to add Avo Shopping Company as a defendant.

The court treated Brock’s January 20, 2022 letter as a request to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The court explained that a request to amend must include the proposed amended pleading so the court can review the exact changes and requested relief. Brock had already filed one amended complaint.

The court denied Brock’s motion without prejudice and directed him to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint by January 28, 2022 if he wanted to seek permission to amend again. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Brock v. The City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-11094
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Jan. 21, 2022

Background

Mandela Brock asked to amend his complaint for a second time by adding Avo Shopping Company to the case. The request appeared in a January 20, 2022 letter. The court construed that letter as a motion to amend under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The opinion also states that Brock had already filed one amended complaint.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that the general rule requires a motion to amend to include a proposed amended pleading. That pleading allows the court to understand the specific changes requested and the relief sought against each defendant. Brock’s letter did not include a proposed amended complaint.

Ruling

The court denied without prejudice Brock’s motion to amend. The court directed that, if Brock wanted permission to file another amended pleading, he had to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint no later than January 28, 2022. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.