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.

Heine v. City of Garfield

United States District Court, Third Circuit

May 28, 2013

ELLEN HEINE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF GARFIELD, et al., Defendant. ELLEN HEINE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF GARFIELD, et al., Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND [D.E. 32]

STEVE MANNION, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Pending before this Court is plaintiff Ellen Heine's motion to amend her pleading in action 11-cv-2655 to file a Third-Amended Complaint. (D.E. 32). The Court has considered the parties' submissions and oral argument on May 28, 2013, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), and for the reasons set forth below the Court denies the motion to amend.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Ellen Heine ("Plaintiff" or "Heine") filed her initial civil rights complaint against defendant City of Garfield on May 6, 2011. (D.E. 1). She amended her pleading one week later. (D.E. 2). The following year, Heine filed a Second Amended Complaint without obtaining leave from the Court on February 24, 2012. (D.E. 11).

Heine subsequently filed a motion to amend her pleading to add additional plaintiffs against defendants. (D.E. 19). The motion was denied because 1) there was no proposed pleading attached to the motion, [D.E. 26, ¶ 1] as required by Local Civil Rule 7.1(f);[1] and 2) Plaintiff is not an attorney and is therefore not authorized to file pleadings for other persons or entities. (D.E. 26, ¶ 3). On the latter point, the Court instructed that Plaintiff "did not obtain signatures from" the persons she sought to add to the pleading. (D.E. 26, ¶ 3).

Subsequently, Plaintiff moved to amend her pleading to add Christopher Grieco, Keri Burke, Kara Grieco, Richard Holler, Ruthann Hughes, Andrew Tuscano, and Caitlin Ruppert as additional plaintiffs against the City of Garfield. (D.E. 32-3). Defendant opposes the amendment as futile and because Plaintiff is not an attorney authorized to file for others. (D.E. 35).

III. DISCUSSION

Rule 15

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), "the court should freely give leave to amend when justice so requires." While leave to amend is typically granted, it is not an absolute right and the decision to amend rests within the sound discretion of the district court. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Courts liberally grant motions to amend if the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon may be a proper subject for relief, granting the amendment would not be unduly prejudicial to the non-moving party, and the movant has not acted with undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive. Id. An amendment may only be granted if it is not futile, and the opposing party bears the burden of establishing that a proposed amendment should be denied. Id.

Rule 11

Despite liberal pleading rules, a proposed pleading must still comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11(a) requires that every pleading and motion be signed by the party or his attorney of record. The proposed pleading addressed the earlier Rule 11 problem by including signatures from Plaintiff as well as Christopher Grieco, Keri Burke, Kara Grieco, Richard Holler, Ruthann Hughes, Andrew Tuscano, and Caitlin Ruppert. (D.E. 32-3). That, however, is not the only deficiency with the proposed pleading.

Rule 10

Rule 10(b) requires that a "party must state its claims... in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances." Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b). Rule 10(b) is "designed to achieve clarity and simplicity in the pleadings." 5A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1324 (3d ed. 2004) (citing Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll. , 77 F.3d 364 (11th Cir. 1996)). Courts may require repleading pursuant to Rule 10(b) when three circumstances are present: "[1] where multiple claims are asserted, [2] where they arise out of separate transactions or occurrences, and [3] where separate statements will facilitate a clear presentation." Bautista v. Los Angeles County , 216 F.3d 837, 840-41(9th Cir. 2000) (citing 5A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1324 (2d ed. 1990)). "The purpose of the requirement of separate counts is to clarify the issues and simplify the trial...." ...


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.