Thompson v. City of New York
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-08202
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Thompson v. City of New York, Judge Vyskocil allowed amendment, denied dismissal motions as moot, and denied the City’s pre-motion request as moot.
Pro se plaintiff Eon Thompson may file an amended complaint by April 1, 2022. The identified defendants may refile their dismissal motions after receiving it, and the City of New York may refile its request for a pre-motion conference.
What happened
In Thompson v. City of New York, pro se plaintiff Eon Thompson asked to amend his complaint. No defendant opposed the request within the time set by the court, and the court was unaware of any opposition.
Several defendants had filed motions to dismiss, and the City of New York had requested permission to make its own dismissal motion. The court chose to allow Thompson to amend before addressing those requests.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted leave to amend and ordered Thompson to file the amended complaint by April 1, 2022. She denied the pending dismissal motions and the City’s pre-motion conference request as moot, without prejudice to refiling after the amended complaint was served.
The detailed version
- Thompson v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-08202
- Vyskocil
- Feb. 24, 2022
Background
Pro se plaintiff Eon Thompson submitted a letter asking for permission to amend his complaint. The court’s rules gave defendants three business days to state whether they opposed an unconsented letter motion. No appearing defendant did so, and the court had not received any opposition as of the order.
At the time, Koehler & Isaacs LLP, Isaacs Devasia Castro & Wein LLP, Cory Gracia, Andrew Rowe, and the Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association, Inc. had filed motions to dismiss. The City of New York had also filed a pre-motion letter seeking permission to make a dismissal motion. The court explained that when a plaintiff seeks to amend while a dismissal motion is pending, the court may either consider the existing motion or deny it as moot and allow the amended pleading to be tested later.
Court’s Reasoning
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally allows amendment with the court’s permission when fairness requires it. The court noted that amendments are generally favored because they help courts decide disputes on their merits. It therefore chose to grant Thompson’s unopposed request rather than decide the pending dismissal motions against the original complaint.
The court warned Thompson that the pending dismissal filings put him on notice of alleged problems with his pleading. It stated that it would be reluctant to allow another amendment if defendants successfully moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and it directed Thompson to consider the arguments in the submissions already filed.
Order and Effect
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted Thompson’s motion for leave to amend and ordered him to file the amended complaint by April 1, 2022. The court denied the identified defendants’ motions to dismiss as moot and without prejudice to refiling after service of the amended complaint. It also denied the City of New York’s request for a pre-motion conference as moot and without prejudice to refiling after service of the amended complaint. The order did not decide whether Thompson’s original complaint stated legally sufficient claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.