Free Memorandum in Support of Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3.03 cv 00597-I\/IRK Document 117-3 Filed 12/27/2004 Page 1 2
gage 2 of 3
Westlaw
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 1
2001 WL 1398655 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Cite as: 2001 WL 1398655 (S.D.N.Y.))
H 21. In deciding whether to allow joinder, the Court
Motions, Pleadings and Filings is guided by the same standard of liberality afforded
to motions to amend pleadings under Rule 15.
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. Clarke v. Fonix Corp., 98 Civ. 61l6(RPP), 1999
WL 105031, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 1999), aj§"a',
199 F.3d 1321 (2d Cir.1999).
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
Under Rule l5(a), leave to amend a pleading "shall
Garry RISSMAN, Plaintiff, be freely given when justice so requires," and this
v. Court has thus held that a "motion to amend should
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et. al., Defendants. be denied only for such reasons as undue delay, bad
faith, futility of the amendment, and perhaps most
N0. 01(Ziv.6284 (SHS)(DF). important, the resulting prejudice to the opposing
party." Richardson Greenshields Sec., Inc. v. Lau,
Nov. 9, 2001. 825 F.2d 647, 653 n. 6 (2d Cir.1987) (internal
quotations and citation omitted); see also Foman,
371 U.S. at 182.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In this case, it appears that Rissman has not served
FREEMAN, Magistrate J. either the original Complaint or the First Amended
Complaint on any defendants, and therefore the
*1 Plaintiff Garry Rissman ("Rissman"), proposed second amendment is neither unduly
proceeding pro se, has moved both to extend his delayed nor prejudicial. [FN1] ln addition,
time to serve the First Amended Complaint in this Rissman's motion to amend alleges grounds, based
action and to amend the complaint further to add on personal knowledge, for the assertion of claims
two individual New York City police officers as against each newly proposed defendant. Because
defendants. For the reasons stated below, Rissman's Rissman "has at least colorable grounds for relief,"
motion to amend is granted, and a Second Amended the amendment is not futile, and therefore "justice
Complaint may be filed and served by the deadlines requires" that his motion be granted. Ryder Energy
set forthbelow. Distrib. Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities Inc.,
748 F.2d 774, 783 (2d Cir.1984) (internal
DISCUSSION quotations and citation omitted).
Because Rissman has already amended his
complaint once as a matter of right, he must obtain FNl. In detennining whether a party's
leave of Cotut in order to amend the complaint interests have been unduly prejudiced, the
again. Fed.R.Civ.P. l5(a). The decision whether to Second Circuit has instructed district
grant leave to amend is generally governed by Rule courts to consider "whether the assertion of
15(a), and is within the sound discretion of the the new claim would: (i) require the
Court. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 opponent to expend significant additional
(1962). Where the proposed amendment seeks to resources to conduct discovery and prepare
add new defendants, however, Rule 21 governs. See for trial; [or] (ii) significantly delay the
Momentum Luggage & Leisure Bags v. Jansport, resolution of the dispute." Block, 988 F.2d
Inc., No. 00 Civ. 7909(DLC), 2001 WL 58000, at 344, 350 (2d Cir.1993) (citations omitted).
*1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2001). Under Rule 21, a party These factors are not implicated by the
may be added to an action "at any stage of the instant motion, as discovery has not yet
action and on such terms as are just." Fed.R.Civ.P. commenced. See Nwanze v. Philno Morris
Copr. © 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
EXHIBIT B
. .. H --.;r.r --.-..ti..... nam/Aptivam html?dest=atn&f0rma’t=HTMLE&dataid=A005580000... 12/23/2004

Case 3:03- - - .
cv 00597 I\/IRK Document 117-3 Filed 12/27/2004 Page 2 (H 2 3 fg
age 0 .
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 2
2001 WL 1398655 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Cite as: 2001 WL 1398655 (S.D.N.Y.))
Companies, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 7344(LBS),
1999 WL 292597, at *2 (granting motion
to amend because "liberal amendment of [a
complaint] is not inappropriate" when "at
an early stage of the proceedings," and due
to the "heightened obligation to ensure that
the litigation proceeds in an equitable
fashion" where plaintiffs were proceeding
pro se ).
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED
that:
1. Plaintiffs motion for leave to tile a Second
Amended Complaint to add Barbara Sicilia and
William H. Allee as defendants is granted.
2. Plaintiff shall file the Second Amended
Complaint, naming these additional defendants and
containing allegations concerning the specific
conduct of each named defendant, no later than
December 10, 2001.
*2 3. Plaintiff shall serve the Second Amended
Complaint upon all named defendants no later than
April 9, 2002.
2001 WL 1398655 (S.D.N.Y.)
Motions, Pleadings and Filings (Back to top)
• l:OlC\/06284 (Docket)
(Jul. ll, 2001)
END OF DOCUMENT
Copr. © 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
- H . . ,.l__i1---...-.../,1:.1:msmhtml‘7Aa¤t==atn&fo1’mat=HTN[LE&dataid=AOO5580000... 12/23/2004