Scales v. New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, Local 6
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-08142
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Scales v. Local 6, Judge Cronan allowed Scales to explain why an earlier letter should count as an amended complaint.
William Scales and Hotel Trades Council of New York, Local 6; the order gave Scales an opportunity to explain his prior filing but did not state that the earlier dismissal with prejudice was vacated.
What happened
In Scales v. Hotel Trades Council of New York, Local 6, the court had dismissed William Scales’s second amended complaint and gave him until March 8, 2023, to file another amendment. The court warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal.
Scales instead filed a letter discussing damages, defense counsel, and settlement efforts. The court decided that the letter was not an amended complaint, even considering his lack of a lawyer. It then dismissed the case with prejudice and directed the clerk to enter judgment.
After Scales filed additional letters, Judge John P. Cronan allowed him to file another letter by April 18, 2023. That letter could explain why the February 7 letter should be treated as an amended complaint and how it fixed the problems the court had previously identified.
The detailed version
- Scales v. New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, Local 6 · No. 1:21-cv-08142
- John Cronan
- Apr. 11, 2023
Background
In an earlier order dated February 6, 2023, the court dismissed William Scales’s second amended complaint, allowed him to amend by March 8, 2023, and stated that the case would be dismissed if he did not meet that deadline.
On February 7, Scales filed a letter about increasing his claimed damages, the conduct of the defendant’s lawyer, and the defendant’s efforts to resolve the litigation. The court determined that the letter was not an amended complaint, even when read liberally because Scales was representing himself. On April 3, 2023, the court dismissed the case with prejudice and directed the clerk to enter judgment.
Later filings
On April 5, Scales filed two more letters. One asserted that his February 7 letter was actually his amended complaint and attached an altered version with the heading “Amended Complaint.” The other stated that a lawsuit had been filed against the Southern District of New York, asserted that he had met the March deadline, and requested more time to amend his complaint again.
Court’s action
The court stated that Scales had not changed its determination that the February 7 letter was not an amended complaint when filed. However, mindful of his self-represented status and a Second Circuit statement that even frivolous complaints should not be dismissed without notice and an opportunity to be heard, Judge John P. Cronan allowed Scales to file a letter by April 18, 2023.
The permitted letter had to explain why the February 7 letter should be considered an amended complaint and how that document corrected the pleading deficiencies identified in the February 6 order. The opinion does not state that the earlier dismissal with prejudice or judgment was vacated.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.