Briscoe v. New Haven
RULING (see attached) denying 282 Plaintiff's self-styled "Motion to Amend" as a nullity and granting 282 Plaintiff's "Motion to Defer Judgment" pending the Court's ruling on a motion to amend in & quot;proper form," which Plaintiff, if so advised, must file on or before September 23, 2013. If such a motion is timely filed, and thereafter opposed, the entry of judgment will abide the event. If no timely Rule 15 motion is filed, judgment dismissing the Third Amended Complaint will be entered forthwith. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on September 12, 2013. (Dorais, L.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CITY OF NEW HAVEN,
RULING ON DOC. 282 – PLAINTIFF'S "MOTION TO AMEND AND TO DEFER
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT"
HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:
The Court has considered the most recent submissions of counsel, Doc. 282, Doc. 283 and
Doc. 284, and makes the following Order.
Plaintiff's Doc. 282, a modest and barebones submission, describes itself as a "motion to
amend" his complaint pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In practical
reality, Doc. 282 is no more than Plaintiff's statement of an intent to file such a motion sometime in
the future. The submission contains no hint as to the contents of a further Amended Complaint (this
would be the Fourth), and the proposed amended pleading is not attached. Plaintiff requires leave
of Court to amend his complaint yet again, and Professor Moore tells us: "To obtain leave of court
to amend a pleading, the party's motion should attach a copy of the proposed amendment or new
pleading." 3 Moore's Federal Practice, § 15.17 (2010). Failure to attach the proposed amendment
is not necessarily fatal to a motion to amend, "but may result in denial of leave to amend on the
grounds that the court cannot evaluate the propriety of granting leave unless the court is presented
with the substance of the proposed amendment."1 Id. (footnote omitted). The same disability is
visited upon other parties to the litigation, who cannot challenge the propriety of a proposed
amendment without knowing what it says. That is a genuine concern in the case at bar, since it
seems likely (to state it mildly) that the City of New Haven and the Intervenors will challenge any
proposed Fourth Amended Complaint that Plaintiff may fashion. By the same token, Moore
instructs: "Every motion, including a motion for leave of court to amend a pleading, must comply
with Rule 7, which requires the movant to specify the relief sought, and to state with particularity
the grounds for seeking that relief. " Id. Local Civil Rule 7(a)(1) is to the same effect. Plaintiff's
self-styled "motion" to amend fails entirely in these respects, as counsel for Intervenors and the City
point out with vigor in their submissions.
In these circumstances, and in the exercise of my discretion, insofar as Doc. 282 styles itself
a motion under Rule 15, the motion is DENIED as a procedural nullity. The other parties need not
respond to it. Any scheduling orders entered by the Clerk attendant upon Doc. 282 are vacated. If
Plaintiff desires to press a motion under Rule 15 for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, he
must file motion papers in proper form not later than September 23, 2013, failing which the Court
will not entertain a Rule 15 motion by Plaintiff. "Proper form" means that the motion must be filed
with a proposed amended complaint and a memorandum of law. See D.Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(a)(1)
See, e.g., Gulley v. Dzurenda, 264 F.R.D. 34, 36 (D.Conn. 2010) ("To obtain leave of
court to amend the complaint, a party should file both a Rule 15 motion and a proposed amendment
or new pleading.") (citing 3 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶¶ 15. 17 (3d
("Any motion involving disputed issues of law shall be accompanied by a written memorandum of
law" and "[f]ailure to submit a memorandum may be deemed sufficient cause to deny the motion.").
If Plaintiff timely files a Rule 15 motion in "proper form," the City and Intervenors are directed to
file any opposing papers in accordance with the Rules.
To the extent that Plaintiff's Doc. 282 moves to defer entry of judgment dismissing the Third
Amended Complaint as directed by the Court's Ruling, Doc. 281, and in further exercise of my
discretion, that motion is GRANTED. If judgment is entered dismissing the complaint, and Plaintiff
thereafter seeks to further amend the pleading, procedural complexities would arise of the sort
illustrated by In re Star Gas Sec. Litig., 241 F.R.D. 428 (D. Conn. 2007) (Arterton, J.), aff'd. sub
nom. Rossner v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., 344 F. App'x 642, 2009 WL 2581565 (2d. Cir. Aug. 20,
2009). There is no prejudice to the City or Intervenors if entry of judgment is deferred until the
question of a possible Rule 15 motion by Plaintiff is resolved. If such a motion is timely filed, and
thereafter opposed, the entry of judgment will abide the event. If no timely Rule 15 motion is filed,
judgment dismissing the Third Amended Complaint will be entered forthwith.
The foregoing is SO ORDERED.
Dated: New Haven, Connecticut
September 12, 2013
/s/Charles S. Haight, Jr.
CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?