Favors v. Synchrony Bank
ORDER granting 11 Motion to Alter/Amend/Supplement Pleadings and denying without prejudice 24 Motion to Alter/Amend/Supplement Pleadings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung on 5/9/2022. (Written Opinion) (EB)
CASE 0:21-cv-02473-JRT-TNL Doc. 29 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Joseph Anthony Favors,
Case No. 21-cv-2473 (JRT/TNL)
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Joseph Anthony Favors’
“First Motion for Leave to File for Reconsideration After Time Allowed,” ECF No. 11,
and “First Supplemental Pleadings But Which Relates Back to Original Incidents
Motion,” ECF No. 24. No hearing being necessary, see D. Minn. LR 7.1(b), the Court
has considered these motions on the papers.
In each motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to alter his pleadings, either through
amendment (ECF No. 11) or supplementation (ECF No. 24). Local Rule 15.1 requires
that “[a]ny motion to amend a pleading . . . be accompanied by: (1) a copy of the
proposed amended pleading, and (2) a version of the proposed amended pleading that
shows — through redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or other similarly effective
typographic methods — how the proposed amended pleading differs from the operative
pleading.” D. Minn. LR 15.1(b); see Fields v. Peterson, No. 20-cv-2227 (ECT/HB),
CASE 0:21-cv-02473-JRT-TNL Doc. 29 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 4
2021 WL 2302102, at *3-4 (D. Minn. Mar. 18, 2021) (applying D. Minn. LR 15.1 to
supplementation request), affirmed, 2021 WL 2302102 (D. Minn. May 3, 2021). Neither
motion was filed in compliance with Local Rule 15.1.
While Plaintiff’s first motion, ECF No. 11, was accompanied by a proposed
Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 11-1, Plaintiff did not provide the required
explanatory version demonstrating how the proposed Second Amended Complaint differs
from the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 9.
Plaintiff’s second motion, ECF No. 24, purports to “add a Defendant, and
incidents that have occurred after the Complaint was filed.” ECF No. 24 at 1. There is
no proposed amended pleading, just a hodgepodge of paragraphs. While some of those
paragraphs would seem to be expounding on certain existing counts, see, e.g., ECF No.
27 at 2 (“Claim Three,” “Claim Four”), they do not match up with those same
enumerated counts in prior iterations of the pleadings. Compare, e.g., Claim Three in the
Amended and Second Amended Complaints (“The Fair Credit Report Act (‘FCRA’) 15
USCS [sic] § 1681, et seq.” (footnote omitted)), ECF Nos. 9 at 18, 11-1 at 22, with Claim
Three in ECF No. 27 at 2 (“The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C.S. [sic]
1691(a)(3), et seq.”); Claim Four in the Amended and Second Amended Complaints
(“The Fair Credit Billing Act (‘FCBA’) 15 USCS [sic] § 1666, et seq.”), ECF No. 9 at 19,
ECF No. 11-1 at 23, with Claim Four in ECF No. 27 at 2 (“The Equal Rights Under the
Law U.S.C.S. [sic] § 1981(A-C)) [sic], et seq.”). Nor is the new defendant identified.
Plaintiff essentially “leaves it to the reader to integrate his new materials into his earlier
pleadings. This puts an unacceptable burden on the Court and Defendant . . . .” Fields,
CASE 0:21-cv-02473-JRT-TNL Doc. 29 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 4
2021 WL 2302102, at *4; cf. Meehan v. United Consumers Club Franchising Corp., 312
F.3d 909, 914 (8th Cir. 2002) (court “not required to engage in a guessing game”
regarding new allegations).
Plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse him from following the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Local Rules of this Court. See, e.g., Bunch v. Univ. of Arkansas Bd.
of Trustees, 863 F.3d 1062, 1067 (8th Cir. 2017); Bennett v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.,
295 F.3d 805, 808 (8th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Court’s Local
Rules is alone sufficient to deny his motions. See, e.g., Ellis v. City of Minneapolis, 518
F. App’x 502, 504-05 (8th Cir. 2013); O'Neil v. Simplicity, Inc., 574 F.3d 501, 505 (8th
Cir. 2009). Indeed, this failure to comply with Local Rule 15.1 has served as a basis for
denying prior motions to amend filed by Plaintiff in other actions on at least two
occasions. See, e.g., Favors v. Ensz, No. 20-cv-1378 (SRN/DTS), 2021 WL 3293539, at
*4 (D. Minn. Aug. 2, 2021); Favors v. Comenity Capital Bank, No. 18-cv-1857
(JNE/LIB), slip op. at 2-3 (D. Minn. Jan. 7, 2019).
Defendant did not object to Plaintiff’s first motion, ECF No. 11, and filed a
motion to dismiss treating the proposed Second Amended Complaint as the operative
pleading. ECF No. 14 at 1 (moving “to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [ECF
No. 11-1]”); see ECF No. 12 at 2 (“Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint should be
dismissed with prejudice.”). Under the circumstances, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s
first motion, ECF No. 11, and direct the Clerk of Court to file the proposed pleading,
ECF No. 11-1, as the Second Amended Complaint in this matter. Plaintiff’s second
motion, ECF No. 24, however, will be denied without prejudice as procedurally
CASE 0:21-cv-02473-JRT-TNL Doc. 29 Filed 05/09/22 Page 4 of 4
improper. Plaintiff is strongly cautioned that any future motion to amend or supplement
his pleadings must comply with all applicable procedural rules, including the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court.
Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s “First Motion for Leave to File for Reconsideration After Time
Allowed,” ECF No. 11, is GRANTED.
2. The Clerk of Court shall file the proposed pleading, ECF No. 11-1, as the
Second Amended Complaint in this matter.
3. Plaintiff’s “First Supplemental Pleadings But Which Relates Back to Original
Incidents Motion,” ECF No. 24, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4. Failure to comply with any provision of this Order or any other prior consistent
Order shall subject the non-complying party, non-complying counsel and/or
the party such counsel represents to any and all appropriate remedies, sanctions
and the like, including without limitation: assessment of costs, fines and
attorneys’ fees and disbursements; waiver of rights to object; exclusion or
limitation of witnesses, testimony, exhibits and other evidence; striking of
pleadings; complete or partial dismissal with prejudice; entry of whole or
partial default judgment; and/or any other relief that this Court may from time
to time deem appropriate.
s/ Tony N. Leung
Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Minnesota
Favors v. Synchrony Bank
Case No. 21-cv-2473 (JRT/TNL)
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?