Daly v. Westchester County Board of Legislators
ORDER denying 107 Letter Motion for Discovery. The Court construes Plaintiff's request for a pre-motion conference in advance of his motion to amend the Second Amended Complaint as his motion to amend and denies same based upon considerati on of Plaintiff's request (Doc. 92), the proposed Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 99), and Defendant's opposition (Doc. 107). See In re Best Payphones, Inc., 450 F. App'x 8, 15 (2d Cir. 2011) (upholding construction of pre-motion letter as motion). In sum, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his pleading in order to provide additional evidence in support of his position and to "clarify" his claims. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), "[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend a pleading] when justice so requires." Upon due consideration of the circumstances herein, justice does not require granting Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint remains the operat ive pleading in this action. To the extent that Plaintiff wishes to support the claims for relief that survived Defendant's motion to dismiss with additional evidence, he will have the opportunity to provide that evidence on a motion for summary judgment or at trial. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion sequence pending at Doc. 107. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 4/26/2021) (ks)
DANTE EDOARDO DALY
300 Crandon Terrace
Baldwinsville, New York 13207
The Court construes Email: email@example.com
Plaintiff's request for a pre-motion
PHILIP M. HALPERN,
United States District Judge
c/o Pro Se Office
40 Foley Square
Southern District of New York
New York, New York 10007
conference in advance of his motion to amend the Second
Amended Complaint as his motion to amend and denies
same based upon consideration of Plaintiff's request (Doc.
April 1,the proposed Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 99), and
Defendant's opposition (Doc. 107). See In re Best
Payphones, Inc., 450 F. App'x 8, 15 (2d Cir. 2011)
(upholding construction of pre-motion letter as motion).
Re: 19-CV-04642 (PMH) United States
Your Honor Judge Halpern:
In sum, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his pleading in order
to provide additional evidence in support of his position and
to "clarify" his claims. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(2), "[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend a
pleading] when justice so requires." Upon due consideration
of the circumstances herein, justice does not require
District Court leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.
The Second Amended Complaint remains the operative
pleading in this action.
To the extent that Plaintiff wishes to support the claims for
This communication is made in responserelief that survivedOrder of March 31, 2021 with
to the Court’s Defendant's motion to dismiss
additional evidence, he will have the opportunity to provide
denying my Motion to Supplement my Second Amended motion for summary judgment or at trial.
that evidence on a Complaint filed on March 31.
The Clerk of the Court conference under to terminate
2021. As a result, I find it necessary to request a pre-motionis respectfully directed the
the motion sequence pending at Doc. 107.
Court’s Individual Practices Rule 2(C).
The pertinent facts are as follows:
I timely filed my original complaint Philip M. Halpern
in the instant case on May 20. 2019. I filed my
United States District Judge
Amended Complaint on February 11, 2020.
Dated: White Plains, New York
April 26, 2021
Defendant’s Answer to my Complaints was not filed until February 19, 2021, just
over one year later and less than two (2) months ago.
In the six weeks since receiving Defendant’s Answer I have recognized various
issues that should be clarified for the Court and addressed directly in a Reply to
Defendant’s Answer. My Supplement was an attempt to accomplish both tasks in a
single pleading for judicial economy and clarity for the Court.
Since the Court wishes to require another Amended Complaint on my part, I will
accede to the Court’s wishes and file separate documents that were parts of the
Daly to Halpern
rejected pleading: an Amended Complaint which I have entitled Third Amended
Complaint for clarity going forward, and a Reply to Defendant’s Answer to my previously
In the year since my Second Amended Complaint was filed, I have been able to
locate pertinent information on salaries paid to Defendant’s employees during the period
I was employed by Defendant and thereafter that substantiate the allegations that
Defendant was facing potential lawsuits based on gender pay discrimination; evaluate
Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses included in Defendant’s Answer recently received that
bear on various parts of my complaints, current allegations and applicable previous
observations; and obtain appropriate supporting and evidentiary materials that should
be exhibits to my Complaint.
Further, I feel it is necessary to clarify the statutory foundations of my lawsuit
within my Complaint to assure all participants understand the significant differences
between the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1999 and the successive Amendments
Act of 2008 and the Congressional spirit and intent of both laws and their application to
the facts of my case.
Finally, evidence from the Social Security Administration received in February
2020, and other evidence received from other individuals and entities after the filing of
the instant litigation should be included in the filing of my Complaint.
In submitting the Supplement, I attempted to clarify my stated claims, provide a
detailed factual recounting of the actions and events that resulted in this action, and
present currently available existing, pre-discovery credible, admissible evidence to
Daly to Halpern
focus all participants’ attentions to the completion of the litigation and simplify the
requirements for bringing the litigation to final judgment in this Court.
My goals will remain the same if the Court grants my Motion for Leave to File an
Amended Complaint, a copy of which is attached to this letter.
I will be happy to provide any additional information requested by the Court to
support this request.
Dante E. Daly
CC via ECF:
Irma Cosgriff (IC 1320)
Associate County Attorney, of Counsel
600 Michaelian Office Building
148 Martine Avenue
White Plains, New York 10601
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?