Schinella v. Soyer

Background

Beth Schinella alleged that she was injured in a workplace slip-and-fall and was entitled to benefits under New York workers’ compensation law and a provision of her employment contract. She alleged that Dutchess County and George Salem Jr. pursued a fraud claim and appealed a workers’ compensation award based on information from Dr. Adam Soyer that she said was false.

Schinella’s original complaint asserted six claims, including federal and state due-process claims, federal and state malicious-civil-prosecution claims, a contract-interference claim against Dr. Soyer, and a state malicious-criminal-prosecution claim against Salem Jr. and Dutchess County. The court previously granted Soyer’s motion to dismiss the contract-interference claim without prejudice and gave Schinella permission to amend only that claim. The action against Soyer was later discontinued with prejudice by stipulation.

Issue and Rule

Schinella’s amended complaint added a seventh cause of action—a Monell claim. A Monell claim is a claim that a local government is legally responsible under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a constitutional violation caused by its policy, practice, or custom. Dutchess County and Salem Jr. asked the court to dismiss this new claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), arguing that Schinella had exceeded the limited permission to amend.

Rule 15(a)(2) generally requires a party to obtain the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s permission before making an amendment. The court explained that when it grants permission to amend for a limited purpose, a plaintiff may not add unrelated claims without further permission.

Court’s Reasoning

The court found that its earlier order addressed only Soyer’s motion and allowed Schinella to replead her contract-interference allegations against Soyer. It did not authorize changes to the claims against Dutchess County or Salem Jr.

The court rejected Schinella’s argument that the new Monell claim merely clarified her existing theories. It noted that she expressly added the claim as a separate seventh cause of action and acknowledged that she did not have specific authorization to make the amendment. The court therefore concluded that the seventh cause of action was an unauthorized amendment.

Disposition and Effect

The court granted Dutchess County and Salem Jr.’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Schinella’s seventh cause of action. The order did not dismiss the other causes of action against Salem Jr. and Dutchess County; those claims remained in the case. The defendants were directed to answer the amended complaint by September 9, 2022, and the parties were directed to file a case-management plan and scheduling order by that date.

The opinion resolved whether Schinella could add the seventh claim under the court’s amendment order; it did not decide the merits of that claim or the remaining claims.