Jiggetts v. Allied International Union, No. 1:2007cv11572 - Document 16 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER #97176 re: 15 MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by Kyle Jiggetts, 9 MOTION to Amend/Correct 2 Complaint filed by Kyle Jiggetts Allied International Union answer due 3/31/2009. Jiggetts's May 2008 Motion to Amend hi s Complaint (as presented in Docket No.9) is GRANTED, and Jiggetts's February 18,2009 Motion to Amend his Complaint (Docket No. 15) is DENIED. Allied International Union shall respond to Jiggetts's Amended Complaint (Docket No.9) on or before March 31, 2009. No further motions to amend shall be filed by Jiggetts absent express permission of the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 3/4/2009) (tve) Modified on 3/6/2009 (mro).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK < KYLE JIGGETTS, Plaintiff, - against ALLIED INTERNATIONAL UNION, Defendant. : : : : : : : : : MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 07 Civ. 11572 (JSR) (RLE) < RONALD L. ELLIS, United States Magistrate Judge: In December of 2007, Pro se Plaintiff Kyle Jiggetts filed his initial Complaint in this action, alleging that Allied International Union failed to represent him in hearings regarding his termination by Tristar Patrol Services, Inc. Jiggetts alleged that this failure to represent was the result of unlawful discrimination and retaliation on the part of Allied International Union. On May 21, 2008, Allied International Union answered the Complaint, including in its response a number of affirmative defenses. (Docket No. 6.) In late May 2008, and again in mid-June 2008, Jiggetts asked the Court to grant him permission to amend his Complaint. (See Docket Nos. 9 & 10.) Entry number 9 provides the Court with Jiggetts s proposed Amended Complaint, while number 10 is merely a correspondence regarding his request, and does not provide any additional information. While Jiggetts s request was sub judice, he filed another motion to amend his Complaint, dated February 18, 2009. (Docket No. 15.) Upon review of the two pending motions, the Court finds that Jiggetts s first Motion to Amend (Docket No. 9) provides additional factual allegations, presented in numbered paragraphs and supplementing the claims presented in his initial Complaint. In contrast, Jiggetts s most
]]>
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.
