Meehan v. Quicken Loans, Inc.
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
QUICKEN LOANS, INC.,
C.A. No. 19-560 WES
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, District Judge.
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.
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY OPPOSING COUNSEL
Plaintiff seeks to disqualify Defendant’s counsel, Attorney
Pl.’s Mot. to Disqualify Opposing Counsel 1.
maligned her in an effort to intimidate. Id. at 1-2. As purported
conversation between herself and Attorney MacLeman.
Mot. to Disqualify Opposing Counsel, Ex. A.
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.
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.
See Nov. 25, 2020 Text Order.
differences are that the signature line with her husband’s name
has been crossed out, and Plaintiff has signed and dated the
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
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
be denied with prejudice, meaning that she will not be allowed to
file any more motions seeking to amend her Complaint.
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
Date: March 31, 2021
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?