Simoni v. Village of Sodus and Board of Trustees

Filing 20

DECISION & ORDER Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint 9 is denied without prejudice to renewal upon receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue letter from the EEOC. Plaintiff must file such a motion within thirty days of receipt of the EEOC l etter. Any such motion must be accompanied by a proposed amended complaint that will supercede the original pleading in all respects, in accordance with Local Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's motion to quash 19 is denied as moot. the parties are directed to notify this Court within ten days of receipt of the anticipated Notice of Right to Sue letter from the EEOC. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 1/10/2012. (KAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

WALTER Z. SIMONI,
DECISION & ORDER
Plaintiff,
11-CV-6177CJS
v.
VILLAGE OF SODUS AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES, Brenda Rowe, William Critchfield
and Sharron Purdy,
Defendants.

Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter filed the instant action on April 7, 2011
alleging that defendants discriminated against him in employment in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act and the New York Human Rights Law. (Docket # 1). On September 23, 2011,
plaintiff moved to supplement his complaint to include allegations of conduct occurring since he
had filed the original complaint, including his termination of employment on June 1, 2011.
(Docket # 9). Plaintiff failed to attach to his motion a proposed amended complaint as required
by Local Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants opposed plaintiff’s motion
on the ground that plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies and had not received a
right to sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) regarding his
May 24, 2011 complaint to the New York State Division of Human Rights. (Docket ## 13, 14).
On December 12, 2011, the plaintiff moved to “quash” the defendants’ opposition
to his motion to amend the complaint on the ground that on November 7, 2011, the New York

State Division of Human Rights had rendered a decision on his May 24, 2011 administrative
complaint and he expected the EEOC to issue a Notice of Right to Sue letter shortly. (Docket #
19). On January 6, 2012, defendants notified this Court that they withdraw their opposition to
plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint conditioned on plaintiff’s receipt and production of the
Notice of Right to Sue letter from the EEOC. (See January 6, 2012 letter from Christian Jones,
Esq.).
Accordingly, the parties are directed to notify this Court within ten days of receipt
of the anticipated Notice of Right to Sue letter from the EEOC. Plaintiff’s motion to amend his
complaint (Docket # 9) is DENIED without prejudice to renewal upon receipt of the Notice of
Right to Sue letter from the EEOC. Plaintiff must file such a motion within thirty days of receipt
of the EEOC letter. Any such motion must be accompanied by a proposed amended complaint
that will supercede the original pleading in all respects, in accordance with Local Rule 15 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s motion to quash (Docket # 19) is DENIED as
MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Marian W. Payson
MARIAN W. PAYSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
January 10 , 2012

2