Leniart v. Bundy et al

Filing 34

ORDER granting #32 Motion to Amend/Correct. See the attached. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on 5/27/10. (Wilson, J.)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT GEORGE M. LENIART, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM BUNDY et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : CASE NO. 3:09-cv-9(CFD) RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND The plaintiff, George M. Leniart, seeks leave to file an amended complaint to clarify his claims. The proposed amended complaint does not include Detective Marty Graham as a defendant and eliminates the plaintiff's claims regarding his business. The plaintiff may amend his complaint once as of right within twenty-one days of service or within twenty-one days after service of an answer or motion to dismiss, whichever is earlier. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Those dates have long passed. Fed. R. Thus, the plaintiff cannot amend his complaint as of right. The requires. Court should grant leave to amend when justice so Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Underlying this rule is an assumption that the amended complaint will clarify or amplify the original cause of action. See Klos v. Haskell, 835 F. Supp. 710, The some 715 n.3 (W.D.N.Y. 1993), aff'd, 48 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 1995). proposed claims. amended complaint eliminates one defendant and The amendment will clarify the claims in this case. The plaintiff's motion for leave to amend [Doc. #32] is GRANTED. complaint. SO The Clerk is directed to docket the proposed amended ORDERED this 27th day of May 2010, at Hartford, Connecticut. /s/ Thomas P. Smith Thomas P. Smith United States Magistrate Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?