Pushkin v. Nussbaum et al
MEMORANDUM/ORDER that w/in (30) days, Defts. shall respond to 275 MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by DAVID B. PUSHKIN. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 5/22/14. (DD, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
DR. DAVID B. PUSHKIN,
Hon. Kevin McNulty
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00324
BETH R. NUSSBAUM, RHI
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., TIMOTHY:
J. QUINLIVAN, MERITAIN
HEALTH, INC., KEVIN L.
BREMER, ESQ., ARONSOHN
WEINER AND SALERNO, L.L.C.,
GEICO, PREMIER PRIZM
SOLUTIONS, LISA ARDRON, GINA:
FUGE, DOMINIC SPAVENTA,
This matter comes before the Court upon the motion of the plaintiff,
David Pushkin, to file a Third Amended Complaint (“3AC”). Judge Cavanaugh
(to whom the case was assigned until his retirement) dismissed the First
Amended Complaint (“1AC”) for lack of specificity and failure to comply with
Rule 8’s requirement of a “short and plain statement of the claim.” FED. R. Civ.
P. 8(a)(2). (ECF Nos. 227, 228) I dismissed the Second Amended Complaint
(“2AC”), finding that, if anything, it had amplified the faults of the First.
(Opinion and Order, ECF Nos. 273, 274) My order gave Plaintiff 30 days to
submit a properly supported Motion to Amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15,
and provided that, unless such a motion were granted, the dismissal of the
2AC would be with prejudice. I also provided that Defendants should not
respond to any such motion to amend unless ordered to do so.
The Plaintiff has now submitted a proposed Third Amended Complaint.
(ECF 275-2) The 3AC at least contains numbered paragraphs and is divided
into causes of action, numbered I through VII. Each cause of action has a title
(e.g., Cause of Action related to Personal Injury and Negligence). Each lists the
federal statutes under which it is brought. Each cause of action incorporates
by reference numbered paragraphs from the “Statement of Facts” section. From
these, the reader might, to some extent, infer the names of the Defendant(s)
against which each cause of action is asserted. I note, however, that some of
the causes of action list a large number of federal statutes, and the complaint
itself appears to combine diverse unrelated grievances against multiple parties.
Nevertheless, I find this pro se pleading sufficient to put Defendants to
the burden of submitting papers in response to the Motion to Amend. Such
papers should concentrate on the issue of whether permitting the amendment
would be “futile”—i.e., whether the 3AC could survive a motion to dismiss. See
generally Foman v. Davis, 371 US 178, 182 (1962). The normally liberal
standard of amendment will be considered in light of the fact that this is not a
first, but a third, amended complaint. Arguments submitted in previous briefs
may be incorporated by reference if their application to the current proposed
3AC is clear and will not require undue effort by the Court.’ Accordingly,
IT IS this 22d day of May, 2014
ORDERED that, within 30 days, Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s
motion to amend (ECF No. 275) in the manner described above.
Kevin McNulty, U.S.D.J.
Some of these arguments were referred to in summary form in my prior
Opinion. (ECF No. 273 at pp. 7-8)
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?