Jean-Baptiste et al v. United States of America, No. 1:2010cv04094 - Document 29 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER granting 23 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement. Ordered by Judge I. Leo Glasser on 7/31/2012. (Green, Dana)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jean-Baptiste et al v. United States of America Doc. 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------x MIMOSE J EAN-BAPTISTE, STEVEN J EAN-BAPTISTE, and CARL FITZJ AMES, Plaintiffs, Mem orandum an d Order 10 Civ. 40 94 - against - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------x GLASSER, United States District J udge: Plaintiffs Mim ose J ean-Baptiste, Steven J ean-Baptiste, an d Carl Fitzjam es (collectively, “plaintiffs”) brought this action against the United States of Am erica (“defendant” or “the United States”) pursuant to the Federal Tort Claim s Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (the “FTCA”), alleging personal injuries arising from a traffic in cident. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), plaintiffs now m ove for leave to am end their Com plain t to add defendants New York City Transit Authority (“NYCTA”) and J ean J . Lahens (“Lahens”). For the following reasons, plaintiffs’ m otion is GRANTED. BACKGROU N D The following facts are undisputed, unless otherwise noted. On the m orning of J anuary 8 , 20 0 8, plaintiffs were passengers on NYCTA bus # 8460 , driven by Lahens. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Com pl. ¶¶ 7-8. At approxim ately 10 :0 0 a.m . the bus was traveling on Nostrand Avenue in Brooklyn, New York, when it allegedly m ade a sudden stop or swerved to avoid colliding with a United States Postal Service (“USPS”) vehicle driven by Ming Chang, also known as Nung Chang (“Chang”). Id. ¶¶ 9-11. As a result, plaintiffs allege they were thrown about the bus and injured. Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiffs filed two actions arising from that incident. The first was com m enced in New York Suprem e Court on October 23, 20 0 9 against the NYCTA, Manhattan an d Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, MTA New York City Transit, an d Lahens (the “state court action”). See J ean-Baptiste v. NYCTA, et al., No. 17678/ 20 0 8 (Kings Cnty. Sup. Ct. Oct. 23, 20 0 9). Discovery has ended in the state court action and the parties are prepared to go to trial. See Plaintiff’s Pre-Motion Conference Letter dated Mar. 23, 20 12 (Pls.’ Pre-Motion Letter) (Dkt. No. 22) at 1. Plaintiffs’ second action was com m enced on Septem ber 7, 20 10 before this Court against USPS and Chang. Id. Pursuant to a stipulation am ong the parties, on J anuary 6, 20 10 the Court dism issed with prejudice plaintiffs’ claim s against USPS and Chang and am ended the Com plaint to nam e the United States as defendant. See Stipulation and Order of Partial Dism issal and Am endm ent of Caption (Dkt. No. 10 ). Depositions have been com pleted in the federal action but expert discovery is on going. Pls.’ PreMotion Letter at 1. 2 On April 9, 20 12, plaintiffs filed this m otion to am end the Com plaint to add NYCTA and Lahens as defendants, essentially seeking to consolidate the state and federal actions. 1 The United States opposes the m otion; NYCTA does not. D ISCU SSION I. Le gal Stan d ard A m otion to am end the Com plaint is generally governed by Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that “[A] party m ay am end its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consen t or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Where, as here, plaintiffs propose to add new parties, the m otion is governed by Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that “[o]n m otion or on its own, the court m ay at any tim e, on just term s, add or drop a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. “Although Rule 21, and not Rule 15(a) norm ally governs the addition of new parties to an action, the sam e standard of liberality applies under either Rule.” Clarke v. Fonix Corp., No. 98 Civ. 6116 (RPP), 1999 WL 10 50 31, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 1999) (internal quotation m arks om itted), aff’d, 199 F.3d 1321 (2d Cir. 1999). Leave to am end m ay properly be denied for “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory m otive on the part of the m ovant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by am endm ents previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the am endm ent, futility of am endm ent, etc.” Fom an v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 8 3 S. Ct. 227, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962). In opposition, the United States argues only that it will be 1 The Court notes that, contrary to Local Civil Rule 7.1(a), plaintiffs’ counsel filed no m em oranda of law and, instead, subm itted two affirm ations. See Plaintiff’s Motion to Am end the Complaint (“Serpico Aff.”) (Dkt. No. 23); Reply Affirm ation of Michael A. Serpico dated J une 1, 20 12 (“Serpico Reply Aff.”) (Dkt. No. 28). 3 prejudiced by the am endm ent. Prejudice arises when the am endm ent would “‘(i) require the opponent to expen d 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 tim ely action in another jurisdiction.” Block v. First Blood Assocs., 988 F.2d 344, 350 (2d Cir. 1993). “This analysis requires an assessm ent of ‘not only the am ount of time that passed before the m ovant sought to am end, but also the reasons for that delay and its practical im pact on the other side’s legitim ate interests, including both that party’s ability to respond to new claim s or defenses and any other prejudice flowing from a delay in the fin al adjudication of the case.’” Sly Magazine, LLC v. Weider Publications LLC, 241 F.R.D. 527, 532 (S.D.N.Y. 20 0 7) (quoting Credit Suisse First Boston LLC v. Coeur d’Alene Mines Corp., No. 0 3 Civ. 9547 (PKL) (MHD), 20 0 4 WL 290 3772, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 20 0 4)). II. D e fe n d an t w ill n o t be Pre ju d ice d by th e Am e n d m e n t The United States argues it will be prejudiced by the am endm ent because “the depositions of plaintiffs taken in the federal case could not be used against the [NYC]TA at trial because it was not given notice and did not attend the federal depositions as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(1)(A).” Def.’s Mem . at 9. Rule 32(a)(1) requires that a deposition m ay only be used against a party if “the party was present or represented at the taking of the deposition.” Contradictorily, the United States also argues “the [NYCTA] and plaintiffs could attem pt to use the state court depositions against the United States at trial, which were conducted without counsel for the United States in attendance.” Def.’s Mem . at 9. The United States provides no reason why Rule 32(a)(1) would apply to the United States but not to plaintiffs. 4 The only depositions conducted without the NYCTA present were the federal depositions of plaintiffs and Chang. See Serpico Reply Aff. ¶¶ 5-6. It is true that, pursuant to Rule 32(a)(1), the United States m ay not use the federal depositions of plaintiffs or Chang against the NYCTA. However, the United States m ay use the state depositions of plaintiffs and Chang for that purpose or it m ay conduct a second deposition of these witnesses. The facts of this case are very lim ited and additional depositions would not be unduly burdensom e. In addition, although not a party to the state court proceedings, all discovery in those proceedings has been m ade available to the United States. See Serpico Aff. ¶ 29 (noting the discovery included “TA accident reports, police reports, TA Statutory Hearing Transcripts, Notices of Claim to the TA and all depositions from the state action”). The United States has already deposed Lahens an d Richard Herm an, the NYCTA supervisor who cam e to the accident scene. See Serpico Reply Aff. ¶ 4 (noting the United States deposed Lahen s and Herm an with NYCTA counsel present). For these reasons, the Court finds that the addition of the NYCTA and Lahens as defendants would not require the United States to expen d significant, if any, additional resources to prepare for trial or significantly delay resolution of the dispute and therefore the United States will not be prejudiced by the am endm ent. Finally, the Court notes that plaintiffs have provided a reasonable explanation for their delay in am endin g the Com plaint. See City of Syracuse v. Onondaga County, 464 F.3d 297, 30 8 (2d Cir.20 0 6) (“Although Rule 21 contains no restrictions on when m otions to add or drop parties m ust be m ade, the tim ing of the m otion m ay influence the court’s discretion in determ in ing to grant it.” (quotation om itted)). Much of the 5 delay is attributable to a change in the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to this m atter and confusion regarding the United States’ intentions. The AUSA initially assigned to the case, Nancy Miller, in dicated that she would seek to consolidate the state and federal actions m ore than a year ago. See Minute Entry for Proceedings Held before Magistrate J udge Robert M. Levy on April 15, 20 11 (recording that, “defendant intends to rem ove that [state court] case to this court and consolidate it with this one”); Declaration of Kevan Cleary dated May 23, 20 12 (“Cleary Decl.”) ¶ 4. She subsequently determ ined that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not perm it a defendant to m ake such a m otion, see Cleary Decl. ¶ 4, but this change in position evidently was not com m unicated to plaintiffs or to her successor when she took em ergency m edical leave in Novem ber 20 11. See, e.g., Minute Entry for Proceedings Held before Magistrate J udge Robert M. Levy on J anuary 11, 10 12 (recording that “Mr. Cleary will advise by 1/ 13/ 12 whether he agrees to join der of NYCTA and will attem pt to determ ine whether prior counsel, Ms. Miller, agreed to do so”). In light of the foregoing, plaintiffs have not unreasonably delayed am ending the Com plaint. 6 III. Co n clu s io n For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ m otion to am end the Com plaint is GRANTED. SO ORD ERED . Dated: Brooklyn, New York J uly 31, 20 12 _ _ _ / s/ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I. Leo Glasser, U.S.D.J . 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
