Andino v. Gem Quality Construction Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-05953
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Andino v. Gem-Quality, Judge Rearden denied as moot discovery and dismissal motions after striking an improperly filed amended complaint.
Tabetha Andino’s attempt to obtain Muhammed Tahir’s contact information from Gem-Quality Corporation was halted because the amended complaint adding Gem-Quality was struck. Gem-Quality was terminated from the docket, and its motion to dismiss was denied as moot.
What happened
In Andino v. Gem-Quality Corporation, Tabetha Andino asked to obtain Muhammed Tahir’s contact information from Gem-Quality Corporation so she could serve him. She said Tahir had not been served despite her efforts and that Gem-Quality had refused to provide the information.
The court struck Andino’s amended complaint because she filed it without being allowed to amend automatically and without requesting permission to amend. That complaint had added Gem-Quality Corporation as a defendant, so the court concluded that Gem-Quality was no longer a proper party. The court also directed the clerk to remove the amended complaint and Gem-Quality from the docket.
The court denied Andino’s motion to compel discovery from Gem-Quality as moot and stated that the motion could be renewed if she properly requested permission to amend and the court granted that request. The court also denied Gem-Quality’s motion to dismiss as moot. The opinion was signed by Judge Jennifer H. Rearden.
The detailed version
- Andino v. Gem Quality Construction Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-05953
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 31, 2024
Background
Tabetha Andino sought an order requiring Gem-Quality Corporation to answer one early interrogatory requesting Muhammed Tahir’s contact information, including his last known address and telephone number. She said the information was needed to serve Tahir, who had not yet been served despite her searches, use of public records, and engagement of a private investigator. She also said Gem-Quality, which she described as Tahir’s former employer, had refused to provide the information or accept service for him.
The request sought discovery before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Andino argued that the limited request was reasonable and supported by good cause because she had made diligent efforts to locate Tahir and had no other identified way to obtain his contact information.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court did not reach the request for early discovery. It explained that Andino’s amended complaint had been filed improperly: she was no longer within the period for amending without permission under Rule 15(a)(1), and she had not requested permission to amend under Rule 15(a)(2). The court therefore struck the amended complaint from the docket.
Because the amended complaint was the pleading that added Gem-Quality Corporation as a defendant, the court concluded that Gem-Quality was no longer a proper party. It denied Andino’s motion to compel discovery from Gem-Quality as moot. The court stated that the motion could be renewed if Andino filed the required motion for permission to amend by April 22, 2024, and the court granted that motion.
The court also denied Gem-Quality Corporation’s motion to dismiss as moot. It directed the clerk to strike the First Amended Complaint, terminate Gem-Quality Corporation from the docket, and terminate the motions pending at ECF Nos. 44 and 46.
Classification
This was a procedural order. The court resolved the motions based on the improper filing and resulting party status, without deciding the merits of Andino’s underlying discrimination allegations or the merits of the requested discovery.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.