Friedman v. MT. Sinai Hospital
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:23-cv-01142
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Friedman v. MT. Sinai Hospital, Judge Aaron required a proposed amended complaint before Plaintiff could add another defendant.
Robert J. Friedman, who sought to add Marcy Kopakin as a defendant, and the existing defendants, who were given an opportunity to respond to any proposed Second Amended Complaint.
What happened
In Friedman v. MT. Sinai Hospital, Robert J. Friedman asked to add Marcy Kopakin as a defendant after filing an amended complaint naming Mt. Sinai Hospital, Dr. Shelley Epstein, Dr. Joy Riskin, and Carl Liggio.
Friedman’s request did not include a proposed amended complaint or explain the factual and legal basis for claims against Kopakin. The court explained that it could not evaluate whether the proposed claims would be futile without seeing the proposed pleading.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered that, if Friedman wished to pursue claims against Kopakin, he had to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint by September 14, 2023. Defendants could respond within 14 days after that filing.
The detailed version
- Friedman v. MT. Sinai Hospital · No. 1:23-cv-01142
- Stewart Aaron
- Aug. 24, 2023
Background
Robert J. Friedman filed the action on February 8, 2023, naming Mt. Sinai Hospital, Dr. Shelley Epstein, and Dr. Joy Riskin as defendants. After a July 28 telephone conference, Friedman filed an Amended Complaint on August 8, 2023, naming those defendants and Carl Liggio.
On August 23, 2023, Friedman filed a letter asking to add Marcy Kopakin as another defendant. He did not include a proposed amended complaint or explain why he believed he could assert claims against Kopakin.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that it may deny permission to amend a complaint if the proposed amendment would be futile—that is, if the proposed pleading would not state a claim. The court said that it and the defendants could not evaluate futility without the proposed amended pleading itself. The court noted that judges in the Southern District of New York generally require a motion to amend to include a copy of the proposed amended pleading.
Order
The court ordered that, if Friedman wished to assert claims against Kopakin, he had to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint by Thursday, September 14, 2023. The proposed complaint had to name Kopakin as an additional defendant and state the factual and legal basis for Friedman’s claims against her. The court specified that the Second Amended Complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the current pleading.
The defendants could file a response within 14 days after Friedman filed the proposed Second Amended Complaint. The order also stated that the case had been referred to Judge Aaron for general pretrial matters and that future filings concerning those matters should be addressed to him.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.