Atas v. The New York Times Company
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-00853
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Atas v. The New York Times Company, Judge Oetken denied reconsideration and leave to amend after dismissing Atas’s defamation claims.
Nadire Atas and the defendants named in her defamation claims, including The New York Times Company, The Daily Podcast, Ellen Pollock, Kashmir Hill, Aaron Krolik, Michael Barbaro, John Does 1-20, XYZ Corporations 1-10, and Lily Meier.
What happened
In Atas v. The New York Times Company, Nadire Atas asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of her defamation claims or, alternatively, let her amend her complaint. The court had dismissed those claims under Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim.
The court said Atas had not identified a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. It also noted that she had already amended her complaint three times and had not explained how another amendment would fix the problems in her pleadings.
Judge Oetken denied both Atas’s motion for reconsideration and her alternative motion for leave to amend. The clerk was directed to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Atas v. The New York Times Company · No. 1:22-cv-00853
- James Oetken
- Dec. 1, 2023
Background
On September 5, 2023, the court dismissed Nadire Atas’s defamation claims against The New York Times Company, The Daily Podcast, Ellen Pollock, Kashmir Hill, Aaron Krolik, Michael Barbaro, John Does 1-20, XYZ Corporations 1-10, and Lily Meier under Rule 12(b)(6). Atas then moved for reconsideration or, alternatively, for leave to amend her complaint.
Motion for Reconsideration
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court found that Atas did not present new facts or identify a relevant change in the law. It characterized her arguments as an attempt to relitigate issues already decided.
The court also found that Atas had not shown clear error or manifest injustice in the earlier dismissal. It noted that Atas had already been given three opportunities to correct defects in her pleadings by filing amended complaints.
Request to Amend
The court stated that judges generally should allow people without lawyers to amend their pleadings, but leave to amend need not be granted when amendment would be futile. Amendment is futile when it would not cure the earlier problems or would still fail to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court found that Atas had already had ample opportunity to address the pleading defects and had not offered a specific explanation of how another amended complaint would cure them.
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered that Atas’s motion for reconsideration was DENIED. The alternative motion to amend her complaint also was DENIED. The clerk was directed to close the motion at ECF No. 78.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.