Welch v. City of Peekskill
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-07230
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Welch v. City of Peekskill, Judge Halpern dismissed Welch’s motion to amend for lack of good cause and set a schedule for defendants’ contemplated summary-judgment motion.
Tyrone Welch’s request to amend his complaint was dismissed, and the defendants received a briefing schedule for their contemplated summary-judgment motion.
What happened
In Welch v. City of Peekskill, the court held a conference about Tyrone Welch’s request to amend his complaint. The court treated Welch’s pre-motion letter as a motion to amend and heard arguments from the parties’ lawyers.
The court dismissed the motion because Welch could not show good cause for requesting the amendment. The order does not state that the court decided the underlying claims.
Judge Philip M. Halpern also set deadlines for the defendants’ contemplated summary-judgment motion, including service of the motion and opposition papers before the papers are filed with the court.
The detailed version
- Welch v. City of Peekskill · No. 7:21-cv-07230
- Philip Halpern
- Dec. 2, 2022
Background
The court held a pre-motion conference on December 1, 2022. A pre-motion conference is a proceeding held before a party files certain motions. Lawyers for all parties appeared. The court heard argument on Tyrone Welch’s contemplated motion for leave to amend his complaint, meaning a request for permission to change the complaint.
Ruling on Amendment Request
The court treated Welch’s pre-motion letter, docketed as Document 27, as his motion to amend. After considering the parties’ arguments, the court dismissed the motion for the reasons stated on the record. The court specifically noted that Welch could not provide good cause for the request, citing Parker v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 2000). The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Briefing Schedule
The court set a schedule for the defendants’ contemplated motion for summary judgment, a motion asking the court to rule based on the record when there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial. The defendants were directed to serve, but not file, their motion on January 30, 2023. Welch was directed to serve, but not file, his opposition on February 20, 2023. The defendants’ reply was due to be served on March 6, 2023, and all motion papers were to be filed that day. The order did not decide the contemplated summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.