Perez-Victorio v. City Of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-00421
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Perez-Victorio v. City Of New York, Judge McMahon denied reconsideration of the decision refusing to let Perez-Victorio amend her complaint.
Elvia Perez-Victorio, whose request to reconsider the denial of leave to amend was denied; the proposed amendment involving eight intended defendants was not allowed.
What happened
In Perez-Victorio v. City Of New York, Elvia Perez-Victorio asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision denying her request to amend her complaint. The proposed amendment would have added eight intended defendants.
Perez-Victorio argued that the court was wrong to find that she lacked a sufficient reason to miss the deadline for amending the pleadings and that the proposed claims were legally barred by the time limit for bringing them. She also argued that the COVID-19 pandemic affected her ability to amend.
Judge McMahon denied the motion. The court said Perez-Victorio presented no controlling legal authority or new information that could change the earlier decision and was repeating arguments the court had already rejected. The clerk was directed to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Perez-Victorio v. City Of New York · No. 1:19-cv-00421
- Colleen McMahon
- May 2, 2022
Background
Elvia Perez-Victorio moved for reconsideration of the court’s earlier decision denying her motion for leave to amend her complaint. Her proposed amendment would have added eight intended defendants.
Arguments
Perez-Victorio argued that the court had erred in finding that she had not shown sufficient cause to extend the scheduling-order deadline for amending the pleadings. She also challenged the court’s conclusion that the proposed amendment would be futile because her claims against the intended defendants were time-barred. She raised the COVID-19 pandemic as part of her argument concerning the delay.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is available only for an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. It said the standard is strict and that reconsideration cannot be used simply to relitigate an issue already decided.
The court found that Perez-Victorio identified no controlling authority or new information that it had overlooked. Instead, she repeated the arguments from her earlier motion to amend. The court also stated that it had already rejected her argument that the COVID-19 pandemic justified her more-than-two-year delay and continued to conclude that the proposed amendment would be futile because the claims were time-barred against the intended defendants.
Disposition
Judge McMahon denied Perez-Victorio’s motion for reconsideration. The court stated that the City was not required to respond because the motion was deficient on its face, and the clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 56.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.