Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 11, 2023

Scales v. New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, Local 6

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:21-cv-08142
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Scales v. Local 6, Judge Cronan allowed Scales to explain why an earlier letter should count as an amended complaint.

Who this affects

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

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Scales v. New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, Local 6 · No. 1:21-cv-08142
Judge
John Cronan
Date
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.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.