Meehan v. Quicken Loans, Inc.

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 26 Motion to Disqualify Counsel; and, denying 27 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. So Ordered by District Judge William E. Smith on 3/31/2021. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
QUICKEN LOANS, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)
SHARON MEEHAN,

C.A. No. 19-560 WES

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, District Judge.
Before

the

Court

are

Plaintiff’s

Motion

to

Disqualify

Opposing Counsel, ECF No. 26, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint, ECF No. 27.

For the reasons that follow, both

Motions are DENIED.
I.

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY OPPOSING COUNSEL
Plaintiff seeks to disqualify Defendant’s counsel, Attorney

Kate MacLeman.
Plaintiff

Pl.’s Mot. to Disqualify Opposing Counsel 1.

asserts

that

Attorney

MacLeman

has

ridiculed

and

maligned her in an effort to intimidate. Id. at 1-2. As purported
proof

of

these

accusations,

Plaintiff

submits

conversation between herself and Attorney MacLeman.
Mot. to Disqualify Opposing Counsel, Ex. A.

an

email

See Pl.’s

Having reviewed the

exhibit, the Court finds that Attorney MacLeman’s communications

to Plaintiff were appropriate and professional.

See id. at 1-4.

Accordingly, there is no reason for disqualification.
II.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
On October 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a previous Motion for

Leave to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 20.

Although the substance of

the proposed amendment was not explicitly stated, the Motion
implied that Plaintiff sought to add her husband as a plaintiff.
See Mot. for Leave to Am. Compl. 1, ECF No. 20.

The Court denied

the Motion without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to attach
a proposed amended complaint.
Plaintiff

has

now

See Nov. 25, 2020 Text Order.

refiled

the

same

Motion;

the

only

differences are that the signature line with her husband’s name
has been crossed out, and Plaintiff has signed and dated the
document anew.

See Mot. for Leave to Am. Compl. 1-2, ECF No. 27.

It appears that Plaintiff may have misunderstood the reason for
the previous denial because the renewed Motion once again does not
include a proposed amended complaint.

To be clear, a motion for

leave to amend a complaint must “explain how the amended pleading
differs from the original and why the amendment is necessary, and
be accompanied by a complete and signed copy of the proposed
amended pleading.”

DRI LR Cv 15.

Without these components, the

Court cannot determine whether leave to amend should be granted.
If Plaintiff files another motion for leave to amend, and she
once again fails to comply with this requirement, that motion will
2

be denied with prejudice, meaning that she will not be allowed to
file any more motions seeking to amend her Complaint.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel, ECF No.
26, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, ECF No.
27, are both DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
District Judge
Date: March 31, 2021

3