SINGH et al v. TOWNSHIP OF WEEHAWKEN et al

Filing 192

OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 4/27/2023. (ld, )

Case 2:15-cv-03478-SRC-CLW Document 192 Filed 04/27/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 4283

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SANTOSH SINGH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF WEEHAWKEN, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 15-3478 (SRC)

OPINION

CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on an appeal, filed by Plaintiffs Santosh Singh, Estate
of Virendra Sign, 63-65 Chestnut, LLC, and Sandalwood Holdings, LLC (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) of Magistrate Judge Waldor’s order denying Plaintiffs leave to file an amended
complaint. Defendants Township of Weehawken, Mayor Richard F. Turner, Frank Tattoli,
Guivanni D. Ahmad, Richard P. Venino, and Shaun D. Masterson (collectively, “Defendants”)
oppose the appeal. The Court, having considered the papers filed by the parties, proceeds to rule
on the motions without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the
reasons that follow, the Court will deny Defendant’s motion.
I.

Background
The facts of this action stretch back over a decade. A complete factual recitation is not

necessary to resolve this motion. The crux of Plaintiffs’ allegations in their initial complaint is
that Defendants Richard F. Turner, Frank Tattoli, Giovanni D. Admad, Richard P. Venino, and
Shaun D. Masterson, all officials of the Township of Weehawken, engaged in an illegal scheme of
harassment and intimidation to force Plaintiffs, landlords with property in Weekawkin, to provide

Case 2:15-cv-03478-SRC-CLW Document 192 Filed 04/27/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 4284

low-cost housing to Edward Devaney. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that Defendants harassed them
through arbitrary regulatory holdups based on the damage to their properties caused by Hurricane
Sandy and the subsequent repairs. Plaintiffs allege claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1985, and 18 U.S.C. § 1962, as well as state law equivalents. (ECF No. 1). The Court will refer
to these allegations as the “initial allegations.”
The action was filed in 2015. (ECF No. 1). Discovery took approximately three years. In
August 2019, the Court partially granted Defendants’ summary judgment motion by dismissing
three of Plaintiffs’ thirteen causes of action. (ECF No. 125). Operating under the constraints
imposed by COVID-19, the Court held the final pretrial conference almost one year later in July
2020. The Court entered the final pretrial order the following month in August 2020. (ECF No.
146). The parties then filed various motions in limine, which the Court decided in March 2021.
(ECF No. 164, 165). At this point, the action was effectively ready for trial, but the Court was
forced to delay trial, in part due to the challenges posed by COVID-19.
In February 2022, Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend the complaint to include additional
allegations. (ECF No. 169). Plaintiffs allege that after Hurricane Ida struck New Jersey,
Defendants forced those residing at three of Plaintiffs’ properties, including Plaintiff Santosh
Singh, to immediately vacate those properties because of a mudslide on the cliffs below them.
Plaintiffs allege Defendants then ordered these properties to be demolished because they were
structurally unsound. Plaintiffs allege they then hired an engineer to rebut Defendants’ assertions,
which caused Defendants to ultimately reverse the orders to vacate and demolish the properties.
(ECF No. 166). The Court will refer to these allegations collectively as the “Hurricane Ida
allegations.”

2

Case 2:15-cv-03478-SRC-CLW Document 192 Filed 04/27/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 4285

After consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion, Magistrate Judge Waldor denied leave to amend
the complaint because it would significantly prejudice Defendants and burden the Court.
Magistrate Judge Waldor concluded that while Plaintiffs met the Rule 16(b)(4) standard to modify
the Court’s elapsed deadline to amend the complaint, they failed to meet the Rule 15(a)(2) standard
for amendment. Her reasoning focused on the extensive discovery that would be needed to prepare
the Hurricane Ida allegations for trial, the fact the Hurricane Ida allegations constitute distinct
claims from the initial allegations, and the prejudice that would result from delaying this eightyear-old case. (ECF No. 184). Plaintiffs now appeal Magistrate Judge Waldor’s denial of their
motion to amend the complaint.1 (ECF No. 186).
II.

Discussion
A motion to amend a complaint is a non-dispositive pretrial matter. Magistrate Judges are

entitled to considerable deference when non-dispositive matters are appealed. A Magistrate
Judge’s order on such a matter may only be modified or set aside if it is “clearly erroneous or is
contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Magistrate Judge Waldor’s denial of Plaintiffs motion is neither clearly erroneous nor
contrary to law. Indeed, it would be upheld even if considered under a de novo standard of review.
First, Rule 16(b)(4) governs modifications to schedules ordered by the Court and provides
that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The focus of this inquiry is whether a party shows due diligence in requesting
such a modification. See Premier Comp Sols., LLC v. UPMC, 970 F.3d 316, 319 (3d Cir. 2020);

Plaintiffs’ appeal is timely. Rule 72(a) provides parties have 14 days to file objections to a
Magistrate Judge’s resolution of a non-dispositive matter. Plaintiffs filed their objections on the
14th day following Magistrate Judge Waldor’s Order. (ECF No. 185, 186).
1

3

Case 2:15-cv-03478-SRC-CLW Document 192 Filed 04/27/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 4286

Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 614 F.3d 57, 84 (3d Cir. 2010). Here, the
deadline to amend the complaint was years before alleged date of the Hurricane Ida allegations.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs promptly brought the issue of the Hurricane Ida allegations to the Court’s
attention, four to five months after the allegations are alleged to have occurred. 2 Therefore,
Plaintiffs met their burden under Rule 16 to modify the deadline to amend the complaint.
However, Plaintiffs do not satisfy the standard to amend the complaint under Rule 15. Rule
15(a)(2) provides that when a party cannot amend its pleading as of right, it “may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave,” and that “the court
should free give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). While this language
provides for a liberal amendment policy, the ultimate decision to grant leave to amend a complaint
is committed to the sound discretion of the Court. Cureton v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 252
F.3d 267, 272 (3d Cir. 2001). It is within the Court’s discretion to deny leave to amend a complaint
“if a plaintiff's delay in seeking amendment is undue, motivated by bad faith, or prejudicial to the
opposing party.” Id. at 272-73. Prejudice in this context includes “additional discovery, cost, and
preparation to defend against new facts or new theories.” Id. at 273.
Here, litigating the Hurricane Ida allegations would prejudice Defendants. Moving this
case back into discovery would require Defendants to engage in additional discovery, costing
significant time and money. It would require Defendants to prepare for new issues at trial, despite
their reliance for the past two and a half years on the issues enumerated in the final pretrial order.

2

Four to five months was a reasonable time frame in the context of this case, which was largely
on hold because of challenges to holding a trial in light of COVID-19. The only docket activity
between the motions in limine and Plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint was a single docket
entry on July 26, 2021, adjourning jury selection until 2022. In a faster moving case, four to five
months may not be sufficiently diligent to meet the Rule 16(b)(4) standard.
4

Case 2:15-cv-03478-SRC-CLW Document 192 Filed 04/27/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 4287

This likely would impact Defendants’ litigation management decisions. Furthermore, it would
upend their expectations in a reasonably timely resolution of the action. This prejudice is
substantial, and therefore, leave to amend the complaint will be denied. See id.; Hayden v.
Westfield Ins. Co., 586 F. App’x 835, 841-42 (3d Cir. 2014) (affirming the denial of leave to
amend a complaint in an insurance action to include allegations of damage caused by insurer’s
contracted inspector when the motion to amend was filed after summary judgment); Smart
Pharmacy, Inc. v. Medco Health Sols., Inc., No. 11-6485, 2014 3735344, at *4 (D.N.J. July 29,
2014) (denying leave to amend the complaint two years after the prior amendment was filed
because “countless discovery issues would result by virtue of the amendment”); Duffy v. Charles
Schwab & Co., Inc., No. 98-4595, 2001 WL 1104689, at *3 (D.N.J. Sept. 4, 2001) (denying leave
to amend the complaint after summary judgment, in part because of it would reopen discovery
approximately a year and a half after it had closed).
As Magistrate Judge Waldor noted, the initial allegations and the Hurricane Ida allegations
constitute distinct claims. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24 (1982).3 These claims
can be pursued in distinct actions, especially when doing so promotes judicial efficiency. Plaintiffs
push back against that conclusion, noting the relationship between the initial allegations and the
Hurricane Ida allegations, and the delay that would be caused by filing a second lawsuit. While
the initial allegations and the Hurricane Ida allegation may involve a common alleged motivation,
they involve different conduct, occurred almost a decade apart from one another, and would require

Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24 provides that claims “are to be determined
pragmatically, giving weight to such considerations as whether the facts are related in time,
space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their
treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage.”
3

5

Case 2:15-cv-03478-SRC-CLW Document 192 Filed 04/27/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 4288

different evidence at trial. Therefore, they clearly constitute distinct claims. While a second
lawsuit may not be ideal, it is likely to be a faster path to an ultimate resolution of this litigation
than to move this action backward into discovery. See Hayden, 586 F. App’x at 841-42 (noting
plaintiffs may file another lawsuit to pursue claims that were not permitted to be included in an
amendment to the complaint); Hudson v. Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch, No. 08-cv-254, 2009 WL
1257150, at *2 (May 6, 2009) (denying leave to amend to include excessive force allegations
because it would length an already long case, while noting plaintiff may file a separate lawsuit
concerning these allegations).
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will affirm Magistrate Judge Waldor’s order. An

appropriate order will be filed.

s/ Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER
United States District Judge
Dated: April 27, 2023

6