Bass v. Anoka County et al
ORDER denying 157 ORDER RE: APPEAL/OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge(Written Opinion) Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 12/22/2016. (DLO)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 13-860(DSD/LIB)
Brooke Nicole Bass,
Anoka County, et al.,
This matter is before the court upon the appeal by plaintiff
Brooke Nicole Bass of Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’ November
21, 2016, order denying the motion for leave to amend the complaint
After a review of the Order, and based on the file,
record, and proceedings herein, the court denies the appeal.
This privacy dispute arises out of defendants’ access of the
motor vehicle record of plaintiff Brooke Nicole Bass.
party objects to the magistrate judge’s recitation of the facts or
procedural posture of the case.
The court will therefore proceed
directly to the issues presented.
The Order denied as futile Bass’ motion to amend the complaint
to name 57 individual defendants previously referred to as John or
Jane Does, concluding that (1) any claims against such individuals
are time-barred, (2) the proposed amended complaint does not relate
back to the original complaint, (3) equitable tolling does not
Standard of Review
The standard of review applicable to an appeal of a magistrate
judge’s order on nondispositive matters is “extremely deferential.”
Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1007 (D.
The court will reverse such an order only if it is
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); D.
Minn. LR 72.2(a)(3).
Motion to Amend
The “court should freely give leave to a party to amend its
pleadings when justice so requires; however, it may properly deny
a party’s motion to amend its complaint when such amendment ...
would be futile.” Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497
(8th Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted).
An amendment is
futile when it would not survive a motion to dismiss.
In re Senior
Cottages of Am., LLC, 482 F.3d 997, 1001 (8th Cir. 2007).
complaint relate to conduct that occurred more than four years
before the date of the proposed amended complaint. In other words,
absent application of the doctrines of relation back or equitable
tolling, the claims are untimely and amendment would be futile.
Relevant here, an amended pleading will relate back to the
date of an original pleading when:
[T]he amendment changes the party or the naming of the
party against whom a claim is asserted ... if, within the
period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and
complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment: (i)
received such notice of the action that it will not be
prejudiced in defending on the merits; and (ii) knew or
should have known that the action would have been brought
against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C).
Bass argues that she has met the
above criteria because inadequate knowledge of a party’s identity as was the case here - constitutes a “mistake” within the meaning
of the rule.
That argument has been rejected by several other
judges in this district in nearly identical cases.
See Taylor v.
City of Amboy, No. 14-0722, 2016 WL 5417190, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept.
27, 2016); Engebretson v. Aitkin Cty., No. 14-1435, 2016 WL
5400363, at *6 (D. Minn. Sept. 26, 2016); Krekelberg v. Anoka Cty.,
No. 13–3562, 2016 WL 4443156, at *5 (D. Minn. Aug. 19, 2016);
Potocnik v. Carlson, No. 13-2093, 2016 WL 3919950, at *3-5 (D.
Minn. July 15, 2016); Heglund v. Aitkin Cty., No. 14–296, 2016 WL
3093381, at *5-6 (D. Minn. June 1, 2016).
For the reasons stated
in those cases and in the Order, the court follows suit and
overrules Bass’ objection.
concluding that the doctrine of equitable tolling does not apply in
Her argument has been uniformly rejected
5400363, at *6; Krekelberg, 2016 WL 4443156, at *6; Potocnik, 2016
WL 3919950, at *5.
There is nothing unique in this case that would
warrant a different result.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in
the above cases and the magistrate judge’s thorough and wellreasoned Order, the court overrules Bass’ objection.
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
plaintiff’s appeal [ECF No. 157] is denied.
Dated: December 22, 2016
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
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?