Brennan v. New York Law School

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: 21 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct the Complaint, filed by Moira Brennan. The motion to amend is granted. Plaintiff must file her amended complaint as proposed in her motion by July 29, 2011. There will be no further extension of the dates in the Amended Scheduling Order. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 7/11/2011) (ab)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------X
:
MOIRA BRENNAN,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL,
:
Defendant.
:
:
----------------------------------------X

10 Civ. 0338(DLC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
& ORDER

APPEARANCES:
For the plaintiff:
Moira Brennan, appearing pro se
2671 East 13th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11235
For the defendant:
Daniel A Rizzi
Jessica Amy Chiclacos
Nixon Peabody, LLP
50 Jericho Quadrangle
Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753-2728

DENISE COTE, District Judge:
The plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to add a claim
for damages for emotional distress.
motion as untimely. 1

The defendant opposes the

The motion is granted.

In her original complaint, Brennan pleaded ten causes of
action.

Several of the causes of action asserted the creation

1

The defendant does not oppose Brennan’s request to
eliminate one of her allegations against the defendant.
1

of a hostile environment and claimed that the plaintiff had been
damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

A claim for

intentional infliction of mental and emotional distress asserted
that the plaintiff had indeed suffered mental and emotional
distress.

The complaint’s prayer for relief sought, inter alia,

compensatory damages and punitive damages.
Scheduling orders in this case set the deadline for the
amendment of pleadings as August 13, 2010.

Fact discovery is

due to conclude on August 26, 2011; expert discovery is due to
conclude on October 21, 2011.
On May 27, 2011, Brennan filed this motion to amend to add
a request for emotional distress damages to the prayer for
relief.

As of June 24, Brennan is proceeding pro se in this

litigation, her second attorney’s application to withdraw having
been granted.
The defendant is correct that this application for leave to
amend is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16’s
requirement that the plaintiff show good cause for an amendment
beyond the date set by the Court’s scheduling order.
Grubman, 568 F.3d 329, 334 (2d Cir. 2009).

Holmes v.

In addition, the

defendant asserts that it will be injured by the amendment.

It

contends it will need broader medical record authorizations than
those it has received to date, fuller document discovery of
2

Brennanrs psychiatric historYr and depositions of her doctors
and psychiatrists.
Whether or not the plaintiff had made this motion to amend r
she would have been permitted at trial to seek emotional
distress damages.

The original complaint put the defendant on

notice that the plaintiff was asserting that she suffered
emotional distress from the defendantrs actions and was seeking
compensatory damages for that distress.

In the ordinary case r a

claim for compensatory damages is understood to encompass a
claim for damages due to pain and suffering.

The defendant r

therefore r is not prejudiced by the amendment that the plaintiff
seeks here.
The motion to amend is granted.

Plaintiff must file her

amended complaint as proposed in her motion by July 29 r 2011.
There will be no further extension of the dates in the Amended
Scheduling Order.
Dated:

New York r New York
July 11, 2011

united S

3

Judge