From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Evans v. Port Authority of New York

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jul 10, 2003
02 Civ. 3482 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 10, 2003)

Opinion

02 Civ. 3482 (LAK).

July 10, 2003.


ORDER


On June 16, 2003, plaintiff moved for leave to serve an amended complaint, the original of which is docket item 9. The proposed pleading seeks to add claims of discrimination in 2003 with regard to the positions of physical plant manager and operations manager at the George Washington Bridge and physical plant manager at the Staten Island bridges. The caption of the amended complaint includes the abbreviation "et al." after the name of the defendant, thus implying that there was more than one defendant. The proposed amended complaint, however, identifies only the Port Authority as a, indeed, "the defendant."

As the proposed pleading seeks to include claims based on events after the commencement of this action, the application should have been for leave to serve and file a supplemental complaint rather than an amended complaint. The Court will so treat it.

By letter dated June 24, 2003, the Port Authority informed the Court that it had no objection to the inclusion of the three new discrimination claims but noted the ambiguity of the proposed pleading as to whether the Port Authority is the only defendant. Plaintiff's counsel responded with a letter claiming that he inadvertently had failed to name Philmus and Holmes as defendants, was engaged in discussions with the defendant about which claims he would proceed upon, and sought a two week extension within which to resubmit the proposed amended complaint.

The two weeks now have elapsed without any further word from plaintiff s counsel. Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend is granted save that the "et al." shall not be included in the caption and the Port Authority will stand as the sole defendant absent further order of the Court. If plaintiff wishes to drop any of the claims in the amended complaint, he may do so. If he wishes leave to add defendants, he may seek leave, although the Court certainly is not suggesting that leave to do so necessarily would be granted.

The amended complaint is deemed served and filed today. The defendant shall answer or move with respect to the amended complaint within 10 days.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Evans v. Port Authority of New York

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jul 10, 2003
02 Civ. 3482 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 10, 2003)
Case details for

Evans v. Port Authority of New York

Case Details

Full title:NEVILLE EVANS, Plaintiff, v. THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW…

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

Date published: Jul 10, 2003

Citations

02 Civ. 3482 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 10, 2003)

Citing Cases

Robinson v. Quiros

See, e.g., Dominique v. Zylowski, No. 03-5406(JS)(ARL), 2006 WL 8441027, at *1 & n.1 (E.D.N.Y. June 30, 2006)…