Amisi v. Melick et al

Filing 63

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 46 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to counts I, II, and III and Motion for Judgment on the pleadings. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 5/8/17. (SLW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

filed
•My 0 8 201?

DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
'clerTT

SOUTHERN DIVISION
*

HOLINESS AMISI,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*

CIV 15-4083

♦
*

vs.

*

TOM MELICK,in his individual and

official capacity, SUTRAN,INC., a
subsidiary of FIRST TRANSIT OF

AMERICA,a Delaware Corporation,
FIRST TRANSIT OF AMERICA,and
THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS,SOUTH
DAKOTA,PLANNING DEPARTMENT,
an agency of THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS,

*
*
*
*
*

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

*

*

SOUTH DAKOTA,
Defendants,

*
*

Pending before the Court is Defendant Tom Melick ("Melick") and The City of Sioux
Falls, South Dakota, Planning Department's ("the City") motion for partial summary judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Proeedure 56 on claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and

Defendant First Transit of America's' ("First Transit") motion for judgment on the pleadings
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) dismissing all claims. The Court has

considered all filings on record and for the following reasons, Melic|^ and the City's motion for

'In the caption of her Complaint, Plaintiff misidentifies Defendant First Transit, Inc. as First Transit of America.
See Doc. 1; see also Doc. 53-1 (Contract). However, in the body of the Complaint, Plaintiff refers to both First

Transit, Inc. and First Transit of America. See Doc. 1 at

3-4. First Transit filed a timely Answer wherein it noted

the misidentification. See Doc. 8 at If 5 (emphasis added)(5. Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 3 of
Plaintiffs Complaint except Sutran, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary ofFirst Transit, Inc.). Plaintiff did not file a

motion to amend the Complaint. Normally, a court will allow a plaintiff to file an amended complaint correcting
the misidentification error and the amended complaint will "relate back" to the filing of the original complaint for
purposes of statutes of limitations. See Roberts v. Michaels, 219 F.3d 775, 111 (8th Cir. 2000)("This misnomer
principle is most obviously appropriate in cases where the plaintiff has sued a corporation but misnamed it.").