Lord v. City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-03890
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lord v. City of New York, Judge Aaron asked the Clerk to strike an improperly filed amended pleading and explained how Plaintiff could seek permission to amend.
Donald A. Lord’s proposed amended pleading was subject to being stricken, while Lord remained able to seek permission to amend or file a separate action under the procedures described by the court.
What happened
In Lord v. City of New York, Donald A. Lord filed a proposed third amended pleading even though the deadline to amend as of right had passed, and he had not asked the court for permission to amend.
The court explained that Lord would need to file a motion to amend by November 17, 2022. Because the court’s June 1, 2022 deadline had passed, he would also need to show good cause, which generally depends on diligence. The court also said he could instead file a separate case because the proposed pleading appeared to assert new claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act against new defendants.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron asked the Clerk to strike the proposed pleading from the docket. The order did not decide the merits of Lord’s existing or proposed claims.
The detailed version
- Lord v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-03890
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 3, 2022
Background
Donald A. Lord filed what the court described as a “purported amended pleading” at ECF No. 158. The court stated that this would be Lord’s third amended pleading. The filing appeared to contain entirely new Americans with Disabilities Act claims against new defendants.
Court’s analysis
The court determined that the pleading was improperly filed because Lord was no longer within the period for amending a pleading once as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). He also had not requested permission to amend under Rule 15(a)(2).
The court noted that it had previously set June 1, 2022, as the deadline for amended pleadings. Because that deadline had passed, a motion to amend would also have to satisfy Rule 16(b)(4), which allows a scheduling order to be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court explained that good cause depends on the moving party’s diligence and that a litigant’s self-represented status alone does not establish good cause.
Disposition
The court respectfully requested that the Clerk of Court strike the proposed amended pleading from the docket. It stated that Lord could seek permission to amend by filing a motion meeting these standards no later than November 17, 2022. The court reminded him that an amended pleading would completely replace, rather than supplement, the current operative pleading; a footnote stated that seeking permission to file the ECF No. 158 pleading would eliminate all of his current claims. The court also identified filing a new, separate action as an alternative. Judge Stewart D. Aaron did not decide the merits of any claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.