Barkai v. Mendez
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:21-cv-04050
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Barkai v. Mendez, Judge Karas granted Barkai’s request to amend damages and ordered a second amended complaint by February 27, 2023.
Ariel Dan Barkai may amend the damages requested in his complaint. George Mendez and the other defendants must respond to the second amended complaint after it is filed.
What happened
Ariel Dan Barkai, representing himself, sued George Mendez and other defendants under a federal civil-rights law. After the court partly granted and partly denied the defendants’ earlier request to dismiss, Barkai asked to change the damages requested in his amended complaint.
The court explained that people representing themselves are generally given a fair opportunity to amend their pleadings. It found that changing only the damages request would not unfairly harm the defendants, who already knew about the lawsuit and the possible liability.
In Barkai v. Mendez, Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted Barkai’s request for permission to amend the damages requested in his amended complaint. The court ordered Barkai to file a second amended complaint by February 27, 2023.
The detailed version
- Barkai v. Mendez · No. 7:21-cv-04050
- Kenneth Karas
- Jan. 27, 2023
Background
Ariel Dan Barkai filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by state actors. Barkai filed an amended complaint on June 1, 2022. On September 20, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 11, 2023, Barkai requested permission to amend the damages claim in the amended complaint.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally directs courts to freely allow amendments when fairness requires. The court explained that this standard is applied especially liberally to people representing themselves. Leave to amend may nevertheless be denied for reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, unfair prejudice to the opposing parties, or futility—meaning the proposed amendment would not legally help the case.
The court also noted that allowing a plaintiff to clarify or add requested damages generally does not unfairly prejudice defendants because they are already aware of the facts and claims at issue.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted Barkai’s request for leave to amend the damages requested in the amended complaint. The court ordered Barkai to file a second amended complaint no later than February 27, 2023. This order addressed permission to amend the pleading; it did not decide the underlying § 1983 claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.