Schoolcraft v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 16 January 2015
• Docket Number: No. 10 Civ. 6005RWS.,10 Civ. 6005RWS.
• Citation: 81 F.Supp.3d 295
• Parties: Adrian SCHOOLCRAFT, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

81 F.Supp.3d 295

Adrian SCHOOLCRAFT, Plaintiff

v.CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

No. 10 Civ. 6005RWS.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed Jan. 16, 2015.

Law Office of Nathaniel B. Smith, by: Nathaniel B. Smith, Esq., New York, NY, for the Plaintiff.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, by: Suzanna P. Mettham, Esq., New York, NY, for the City Defendants.

Martin Clearwater & Bell, LLP., by: Gregory J. Radomisli, Esq., New York, NY, for Defendant Jamaica Hospital Medical Center.

OPINION

SWEET, District Judge.

Plaintiff Adrian Schoolcraft (“Schoolcraft” or “Plaintiff”) moves for an order allowing him to amend the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

For the reasons set out below, Plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff may file a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) in keeping with this Opinion.

Prior Proceedings

A detailed recitation of the facts of the underlying case is provided in this Court's opinion dated May 6, 2011, which granted in part and denied in part Defendant Jamaica Hospital Medical Center's motion to dismiss. See Schoolcraft v. City of New York, 10 Civ. 6005, 2011 WL 1758635, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2011). Familiarity with those facts is assumed. The action involves claims brought by Schoolcraft in the SAC against the City, several members of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), collectively the (“City Defendants”), and Jamaica Hospital Medical Center (“JHMC”), two doctors employed by JHMC, and others, (collectively with the City Defendants, the “Defendants”).

Through the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks to:

1. Remove four of the named Defendants: Police Officers Sondra Wilson (“Wilson”); Richard Wall (“Wall”); Robert O'Hare (“O'Hare”); and Thomas Hanley (“Hanley”);

2. Remove a redundant claim for relief brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ;

3. Add Officers Steven Weiss (“Weiss”) and Rafel A. Mascol (“Mascol”) as named Defendants and amend the case caption accordingly;

4. Reassert claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against JHMC;

5. Add a claim for injunction and declaratory relief, seeking an order: (a) finding that all of the Defendants' conduct with respect to their treatment of Schoolcraft was unlawful; (b) and directing the expungement of Schoolcraft's medical and personnel records to the extent that those records suggest that Schoolcraft was properly admitted to a psychiatric ward, that he suffers from a mental illness, that his condition required his commitment to a psychiatric hospital, and that he is dangerous to himself or others; and

6. Modifying the phrasing of numerous factual allegations in the SAC.

The instant motion was marked fully submitted on December 31, 2014.

Applicable Standard

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure directs that leave to amend a pleading be given freely when justice requires. Schoolcraft v. City of New York, 10–cv–6005, 2012 WL 2161596, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2012). “If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded the opportunity to test his claim on the merits.” Id. (quoting Williams v. Citigroup, Inc., 659 F.3d 208, 213 (2d Cir.2011) ). “However, [a] district court has discretion to deny leave for good reason, including futility, bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice to the opposing party.” Id. (quoting McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir.2007) ); see also Zahra v. Town of Southold, 48 F.3d 674, 686 (2d Cir.1995) (upholding the denial of a motion to amend the complaint that was filed 2 1/2 years after commencement of the action, and three months prior to trial); Ansam Assocs., Inc. v. Cola Petroleum Ltd., 760 F.2d 442, 446 (2d Cir.1985) (upholding denial of a motion to amend a complaint when discovery had been completed and motions for summary judgment had been filed).

With respect to futility, a proposed amendment is evaluated on a motion to dismiss standard. See Anderson News, L.L.C. v. Am. Media, Inc., 680 F.3d 162, 185 (2d Cir.2012) ; Mina Inv. Holdings, Ltd. v. Lefkowitz, 184 F.R.D. 245, 258 (S.D.N.Y.1999). To determine whether there would be undue prejudice from a proposed amendment, a court must consider whether the new aspects of the proposed pleading would “(i) require the opponent to expend significant additional resources to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; (ii) significantly delay the resolution of the dispute; or (iii) prevent the plaintiff from bringing a timely action in another jurisdiction.” Monahan v. New York City Dep't of Corrs., 214 F.3d 275, 284 (2d Cir.2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Delay alone, in the absence of a showing of undue prejudice or bad faith, typically provides an insufficient basis for denying a motion to amend. See Rachman Bag Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 46 F.3d 230, 234–35 (2d Cir.1995) (citing State Teachers Ret. Bd. v. Fluor Corp., 654 F.2d 843, 856 (2d Cir.1981) ); cf. Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326, 339 (2d Cir.2000) ( “despite the lenient standard of Rule 15(a), a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the pleadings after the deadline set in the scheduling order where the moving party has failed to establish good cause.”). Furthermore, “the adverse party's burden of undertaking discovery, standing alone, does not suffice to warrant denial of a motion to amend a pleading.” United States v. Continental Ill. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 889 F.2d 1248, 1255 (2d Cir.1989). Nor is “undue prejudice” established by allegations that an amendment will require the expenditure of additional time, effort, or money. Block v. First Blood Assocs., 988 F.2d 344, 351 (2d Cir.1993).

The Four Named Defendants Are Removed

Plaintiff moves, at the Defendants' request, to remove Officers Wilson, Wall, O'Hare, and Hanley as Defendants. Pl.'s Mem. in Supp't 3–5. As this part of the motion is unopposed, these individuals are hereby removed. See City Defs.' Mem. in Opp'n 1.

The First Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Is Stricken

Plaintiff moves, at the Defendants' request, to strike its first claim under Section 1983 against all Defendants except JHMC. Pl.'s Mem. in Supp't 5. As this part of the motion is unopposed, that claim is stricken. See City Defs.' Mem. in Opp'n 1.

Two Additional Defendants May Not Be Added to the Complaint

Plaintiff moves, over Defendants' objection, for leave to add Officers Weiss and Mascol as Defendants. See Pl.'s Mem. in Supp't 1–2.; City Defs.' Mem. in Opp'n 2–11.

Under federal law, which determines the accrual of a Section 1983 claim, a claim accrues “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action.” See Howard v. City of New York, et al., 02–CV–1731, 2006 WL 2597857, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. September 6, 2006). As to Plaintiff's federal claims against Officers Weiss and Mascol, the limitations period for § 1983 claims brought in New York state is three years from date of accrual, i.e., October 31, 2012. See Okure v. Owens, 816 F.2d 45, 47 (2d Cir.1987), aff'd 488 U.S. 235, 109 S.Ct. 573, 102 L.Ed.2d 594 (1989). Those federal claims are therefore barred.

Plaintiff's state law claims are also barred. “[I]n a federal court, state notice-of-claim statutes apply to state law claims.” Hyde v. Arresting Officer Caputo, 98 Civ. 6722, 2001 WL 521699, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. May 11, 2001). Section 50–i of the New York General Municipal Law requires a notice of claim to be filed when bringing an action against the City of New York. N.Y. Gen. Mun. L. § 50–i. Section 50–e of the statute requires a plaintiff to “file a notice of claim within ninety days after the claim arises and commence the action within one year and ninety days from the date the cause of action accrued.” Hyde, 2001 WL 521699, at *4 ; N.Y. Gen. Mun. L. § 50–e. A plaintiff's “failure to comply with the mandatory New York statutory notice-of claim requirements results in dismissal of his claims.” Warner v. Village of Goshen Police Dep't, 256 F.Supp.2d 171, 175 (S.D.N.Y.2003) ; see also Mejia v. City of New York, 119 F.Supp.2d 232, 255–56 (E.D.N.Y.2000) (suits for torts arising from conduct of police officers in the course of their employment must be filed in accordance with New York notice of claim statutes); Hyde, 2001 WL 521699, at *4 ; Davidson v. Bronx Mun. Hosp., 64 N.Y.2d 59, 62, 484 N.Y.S.2d 533, 473 N.E.2d 761 (N.Y.1984). These provisions have been strictly construed. Shakur v. McGrath, 517 F.2d 983, 985 (2d Cir.1975). Because Plaintiff has failed to file a Notice of Claim against the newly named defendants, his state-law claims against them fail. See Plaintiff's Four Notices of Claim dated January 27, 2010, annexed to Mettham Decl. as Ex. C.

Since these claims are barred, adding Officers Weiss and Mascol is permissible only if these amended claims relate back to the original complaint under Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538, 541, 130 S.Ct. 2485, 177 L.Ed.2d 48 (2010) ; Soto v. Brooklyn Correctional Facility, 80 F.3d 34, 35 (2d Cir.1996) (a party may amend its complaint after the statute of limitations expires to add additional defendants only if the amendment would “relate back” to the date that the original complaint was filed).

Rule 15(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an amendment that attempts to bring a new party into a lawsuit will “relate back” to the date of the original pleading when (1) the claim arises out of the same conduct originally pleaded and (2) within 120 days of the original filing date, the party to be added both “received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits;” and the party had actual or constructive notice that “that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity.” Plaintiff argues this...