Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davis v. Two Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

July 7, 2009

JEREMY JOSEPH DAVIS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TWO UNKNOWN NAMED AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Patty Shwartz United States Magistrate Judge

OPINION & ORDER

This matter having come before the Court by way of motion of the plaintiff for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint*fn1 to add the City of Allentown, Pa., and "possibly" the United States of America as defendants, and to add claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346, 2680(h) against the "Federal defendants" and "possibly" the United States, as well as "New Jersey State Tort Claim[s]" against the City Allentown, Pa., as the employer of certain detectives;*fn2

and the Court having considered the parties' submissions;*fn3

and the Court having decided this motion without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78 and Local Civ. R. 78.1;

and for the reasons set forth herein, the motion being untimely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, procedurally flawed under L. Civ. R. 7.1, and futile under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 and 15;

and the motion to for leave to file an Amended Complaint having been submitted on June 11, 2009, eleven months after the July 11, 2008 deadline to file motions to amend pleadings or join parties, see Docket Entry No. 131; Order dated April 21, 2008;

and Fed. R. Civ. P 16 mandating that Scheduling Orders be issued to allow "judicial control over [the] case" and to "streamlin[e] [the case], making the trial process more efficient, less costly, as well as improving and facilitating the opportunities for settlement," Newton v. A.C.&S., Inc., 918 F.2d. 1121, 1136 (3d Cir. 1990);

and to entertain plaintiff's motion would require a modification of the Amended Scheduling Order;

and good cause being required to modify a Scheduling Order, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16;

and the requesting party must show that the deadline "cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension," Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, Advisory Committee's Note, on Subdivision (b);

and the Court concluding that the plaintiff has not presented any facts to show good cause to amend the Scheduling Order and thus the motion is untimely;*fn4

and the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey providing that "[u]pon filing of a motion for leave to file an amended complaint . . . the moving party shall attach to the motion a copy of the proposed pleading," L. Civ. R. 7.1(f);

and the plaintiff having failed to comply with L. Civ. R. 7.1(f);*fn5

and the plaintiff having failed to show that he is entitled to amend his pleading under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15*fn6 because his proposed claims against the federal defendants, the City ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.