Brown v. Whitley

• Decision Date: 22 April 2022
• Docket Number: 21 CV 2933 (AMD) (CLP)
• Parties: LORRAINE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. JOHN E. WHITLEY, Acting Secretary of the Army, and DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

LORRAINE BROWN, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN E. WHITLEY, Acting Secretary of the Army, and DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Defendants.

No. 21 CV 2933 (AMD) (CLP)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

April 22, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Cheryl L. Pollak, United States Magistrate Judge

On May 24, 2021, plaintiff Lorraine Brown commenced this action against defendants John E. Whitley, Acting Secretary of the Army, and the Department of the Army (together, “defendants”), alleging racial and national origin discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and wrongful termination from her employment as a Children's Youth Services Coordinator at the Fort Hamilton Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Community Activity Center (“MWR”), in Brooklyn, New York in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 200e et seq. (ECF No. 1). On January 14, 2022, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and defendants were directed to answer, move, or otherwise respond by March 4, 2022. (ECF Nos. 16, 18; Electronic Order, dated Feb. 18, 2022).

On February 21, 2022, plaintiff submitted a letter motion seeking leave to file a second amended complaint, adding a new plaintiff, Michelle Millwood. (Pl.'s Mot.^[1]). Defendants filed

1

a responsive letter on March 2, 2022, objecting to the plaintiff's request and seeking a stay of the deadline for defendants to respond to the Amended Complaint until plaintiff's motion was resolved. (Defs.' Resp. ^[2]).

For the reasons set forth below, the Court respectfully recommends that plaintiff's request to file a second Amended Complaint is denied without prejudice to plaintiff filing a formal motion to amend, including a proposed amended complaint and memorandum of law in accordance with Rule 7.1(a) of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. Defendants' request to stay their time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint is granted pending resolution of any motion to amend that plaintiff files or upon issuance of the District Judge's Order.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), a party may amend its complaint once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving the original complaint or within 21 days after a responsive pleading has been served. Blanchard v. Doe, No. 17 CV 6893, 2019 WL 2211079, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019); Santagata v. Diaz, No. 17 CV 3053, 2019 WL 2164082, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 17, 2019). After that, amendments are allowed “only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15 expresses a strong presumption in favor of allowing amendment, stating that “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. While courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to grant motions to amend, the Second Circuit has cautioned that an amendment should only be denied “for good reason, including futility, bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice to the opposing

2

party.” McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200-01 (2d Cir. 2007); see Burch v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., 551 F.3d 122, 126 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing in addition, “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed”).

Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, governs amendments to add new parties. Fed.R.Civ.P. 21; see Momentum Luggage & Leisure Bags v. Jansport, Inc., No. 00 CV 7909, 2001 WL 58000, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2001) (citing Kaminsky v. Abrams, 41 F.R.D. 168, 170 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)). Rule 21 permits the addition of new parties “at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just.” Sly Magazine v. Weider Publ. L.L.C., 241 F.R.D. 527, 532 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 21). The same standards that are used when considering motions to amend under Rule 15 have been applied to motions under Rule 21. See id. (holding that “courts adhere to ‘the same standard of liberality afforded to motions to amend under Rule 15'” (quoting Momentum Luggage & Leisure Bags v. Jansport, Inc., 2001 WL 58000, at *2)). Like under Rule 15, courts may deny amendments under Rule 21 when there has been undue delay and the defendant can demonstrate prejudice. See, e.g., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. IDW Grp., LLC, No. 08 CV 9116, 2009 WL 1357946,...