Moldea v. New York Times Company, Civ. A. No. 90-2053.

Decision Date31 January 1992
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 90-2053.
PartiesDan E. MOLDEA, Plaintiff, v. The NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia
ORDER

JOHN GARRETT PENN, Chief Judge.

This case is before the Court on plaintiff, Dan E. Moldea's Motion to Amend Complaint.

After responsive pleadings have been filed "a party may amend his pleading only by leave of Court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).

Plaintiff seeks to "amend his complaint to add a new additional cause of action for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel and interference with prospective business relations...." Motion to Amend at 1. It is settled that where a defendant has filed a dispositive motion, as here, and plaintiff has opposed it, denial of permission to amend is proper. See Wilderness Society v. Griles, 262 U.S.App.D.C. 277, 824 F.2d 4, 19 (1987). Further, "if a complaint as amended could not withstand a motion to dismiss, then the amendment should be denied as futile."1 See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to amend complaint is denied.

1 In support of its motion to amend, plaintiff relies upon Cohen v. Cowles Media Company, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2513, 115 L.Ed.2d 586 (1991). However, that case is inapplicable and therefore does not aid plaintiff. The issue in Cohen was "whether the First Amendment prohibits a plaintiff from recovering damages, under state promissory estoppel law, for a newspaper's breach of a promise of confidentiality given to the plaintiff in exchange for information." Cohen, 111 S.Ct. at 2515. Cohen in no way affects First Amendment analysis of an individual's libel claim against a media defendant.

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • James Madison Project v. Dep't of Justice
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • September 22, 2016
    ...has filed a dispositive motion ... and plaintiff has opposed it, denial of permission to amend is proper." Moldea v. New York Times Co. , 793 F.Supp. 338, 338 (D.D.C.1992) (citing Wilderness Society v. Griles , 824 F.2d 4, 19 (D.C.Cir.1987) ). Whether there has been an "unexplained delay in......
  • Kemin Foods v. Pigmentos Vegetales Del Centro
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • August 10, 2005
    ...See St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Commercial Fin. Corp., 144 F.Supp.2d 1057, 1068 (N.D.Iowa 2001) (citing Moldea v. New York Times Co., 793 F.Supp. 338, 338 (D.C.Cir.1992)).6 Kemin also asserts the amendments cause prejudice due to the changing of a claim for violation of a noncompete t......
  • St. Paul Reinsurance v. Commercial Fin.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • May 4, 2001
    ...(affirming denial of leave to amend where motion was filed after discovery was completed two weeks before trial); Moldea v. New York Times Co., 793 F.Supp. 338 (D.D.C.1992) (stating that "[i]t is settled that where a defendant has filed a dispositive motion ... and plaintiff has opposed it,......
  • Moldea v. New York Times Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • February 18, 1994
    ... ... 22 Media L. Rep. 1321 ... Dan E. MOLDEA, Appellant, ... NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Appellee ... No. 92-7065 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... District of Columbia ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT