Chaney v. Local 32BJ SEIU
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-03652
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Chaney v. Local 32BJ SEIU, Judge Broderick granted amendment and denied defendants’ dismissal motion as moot.
Jon Eric Chaney may proceed by filing an amended complaint. Local 32BJ SEIU and Gene Szymanski must respond under the deadlines set by the court; their pending motion to dismiss was denied as moot.
What happened
In Chaney v. Local 32BJ SEIU, Jon Eric Chaney sued Local 32BJ SEIU and Gene Szymanski. Chaney initially filed the case without a lawyer, but counsel later appeared. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the complaint, and Chaney asked to amend it.
The court allowed Chaney to file an amended complaint. It noted that the proposed amendment removed claims Chaney said were not actionable and added clearer factual allegations to the remaining claims. The court also found that the case was still at an early stage and that the amendment would not unfairly prejudice the defendants.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted Chaney’s motion to amend and denied the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss as moot. The court directed Chaney to file the amended complaint by August 1, 2023, and set deadlines for the defendants’ response and any later briefing.
The detailed version
- Chaney v. Local 32BJ SEIU · No. 1:23-cv-03652
- Vernon Broderick
- July 25, 2023
Background
Jon Eric Chaney filed the original complaint without a lawyer in New York state court on January 17, 2023. The defendants removed the case to the Southern District of New York on May 2, 2023. Local 32BJ SEIU and Gene Szymanski then filed a motion to dismiss. Counsel appeared for Chaney on June 17, 2023.
Chaney opposed the motion to dismiss and separately moved for permission to file an amended complaint. The opinion states that the proposed amended complaint did not add new causes of action. Instead, according to Chaney, it removed claims that were not actionable and provided additional factual allegations about the claims that remained.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) generally directs courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. The court explained that district courts ordinarily should give a self-represented plaintiff at least one opportunity to amend unless amendment would be futile. The court also noted that when a plaintiff seeks to amend while a motion to dismiss is pending, the court may deny the motion to dismiss as moot or decide its merits.
The court found that Chaney had shown good cause to amend. The proposed complaint contained more detail and clearer factual allegations than the original complaint. The court also found that the case was still in its early stages and that allowing the amendment would not cause undue prejudice to the defendants.
Disposition
The court granted Chaney’s motion to file an amended complaint. It denied as moot the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. The court directed Chaney to file the amended complaint by August 1, 2023; directed the defendants to respond by August 15, 2023; and set deadlines for any motion to dismiss, opposition, and reply. The opinion does not decide whether any underlying claim ultimately succeeds.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.