Chinese American Citizens Alliance Greater New York v. New York City Department…

Background

The plaintiffs are the Chinese American Citizens Alliance Greater New York and five Asian-American individuals whose children attended New York City public schools when the original complaint was filed. They alleged that the defendants violated constitutional rights during the plaintiffs’ protest of New York City Department of Education policies at a February 4, 2020 Town Hall meeting at James Madison High School in Brooklyn.

The original complaint named the Department of Education, the City of New York, former Department of Education Chancellor Richard A. Carranza, former Mayor Bill De Blasio, Jason Marino, and seven John Doe defendants. The proposed First Amended Complaint would remove Carranza, De Blasio, and five John Doe defendants; reduce the causes of action from thirteen to eight; remove the class-action allegations; and add Craig Edwards, Serge St. Leger, and NYPD Officer Yergey Dym.

The Motion to Amend

The plaintiffs sought permission to file the proposed First Amended Complaint. The defendants did not object to most of the proposed changes. They opposed the addition of Edwards and St. Leger, arguing that claims against them were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and did not relate back to the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). The defendants did not oppose adding Dym, and the court treated them as having consented to that portion of the proposed amendment.

The proposed complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for certain constitutional violations by state or local officials; claims under the New York Constitution; an assault-and-battery claim on behalf of Siu-Liu Linda Lam; and a respondeat-superior claim against the City and the Department of Education.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that amendments to pleadings are generally allowed when justice requires, unless there is a reason such as undue delay, bad faith, futility, or prejudice. When an amendment adds a new party after the limitations period has expired, the new claims must satisfy the relation-back rules to be treated as though they were filed with the original complaint.

The court agreed that a three-year limitations period applied to the plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims against Edwards and St. Leger. It also noted that the New York constitutional and assault-and-battery claims had shorter limitations periods. The court concluded that the claims against Edwards and St. Leger were untimely unless they related back to the original complaint.

Under Rule 15(c)(1)(C), relation back requires, among other things, that the new defendant knew that the action would have been brought against that defendant but for a mistake about the defendant’s identity. The court applied Second Circuit precedent holding that not knowing a John Doe defendant’s name is generally not a mistake of identity for this purpose.

The court also considered two possible alternatives: a judicial exception for cases where the defendant had special knowledge of the identity and the plaintiff diligently pursued discovery, and New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 1024, which can allow a plaintiff to substitute a named defendant for a John Doe defendant when the plaintiff exercised due diligence before the limitations period expired.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown the required diligence. Defendants’ initial disclosures in June 2021 identified Edwards and stated that they reasonably believed he was the person described in the complaint as John Doe No. 2. Defendants also sent plaintiffs a July 2021 list naming St. Leger and identifying him as a Department of Education employee who worked at the February 4, 2020 meeting. The plaintiffs nevertheless waited until April 2024 to seek to add Edwards and St. Leger.

The court found that serving interrogatories in July 2021 did not change the result. Although defendants did not answer those interrogatories for more than two years, the plaintiffs did not follow up, seek to compel responses, or otherwise pursue the matter during that period. The court therefore concluded that the proposed claims against Edwards and St. Leger did not relate back and were barred by the statute of limitations.

Disposition

Judge Gary Stein’s Opinion and Order granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the proposed First Amended Complaint. The motion was denied to the extent it sought to add Edwards and St. Leger as defendants. It was otherwise granted, including the proposed addition of Dym and the other unopposed changes. The plaintiffs were directed to file a First Amended Complaint consistent with the order by May 9, 2024.