Amisi v. Melick et al, No. 4:2015cv04083 - Document 63 (D.S.D. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 46 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to counts I, II, and III and Motion for Judgment on the pleadings. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 5/8/17. (SLW)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Amisi v. Melick et al Doc. 63 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT filed •My 0 8 201? DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA 'clerTT SOUTHERN DIVISION * HOLINESS AMISI, * * Plaintiff, * CIV 15-4083 ♦ * vs. * TOM MELICK,in his individual and official capacity, SUTRAN,INC., a subsidiary of FIRST TRANSIT OF AMERICA,a Delaware Corporation, FIRST TRANSIT OF AMERICA,and THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS,SOUTH DAKOTA,PLANNING DEPARTMENT, an agency of THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS * * SOUTH DAKOTA, Defendants, * * Pending before the Court is Defendant Tom Melick ("Melick") and The City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Planning Department's ("the City") motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Proeedure 56 on claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Defendant First Transit of America's' ("First Transit") motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) dismissing all claims. The Court has considered all filings on record and for the following reasons, Melic|^ and the City's motion for 'In the caption of her Complaint, Plaintiff misidentifies Defendant First Transit, Inc. as First Transit of America. See Doc. 1; see also Doc. 53-1 (Contract). However, in the body of the Complaint, Plaintiff refers to both First Transit, Inc. and First Transit of America. See Doc. 1 at 3-4. First Transit filed a timely Answer wherein it noted the misidentification. See Doc. 8 at If 5 (emphasis added)(5. Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Complaint except Sutran, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary ofFirst Transit, Inc.). Plaintiff did not file a motion to amend the Complaint. Normally, a court will allow a plaintiff to file an amended complaint correcting the misidentification error and the amended complaint will "relate back" to the filing of the original complaint for purposes of statutes of limitations. See Roberts v. Michaels, 219 F.3d 775, 111 (8th Cir. 2000)("This misnomer principle is most obviously appropriate in cases where the plaintiff has sued a corporation but misnamed it."). Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
