Meyer v. Welsch
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Meyer v. Welsch
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
SCOTT MEYER, Case No. 24-CV-73 (DWF/JFD)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
GAYLA RAHN, Olmsted County Court
Clerk, KIM PIETRZAK, Olmsted County
Court Clerk, HANS HOLLAND,
OLMSTED COUNTY COURT, Court
Administration, JOHN/JANE DOE,
sued in their individual/personal and
official capacities,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s First Motion to Amend the Complaint
(Dkt. No. 40). In an amendment to his first complaint, Mr. Meyer added two new
defendants, but inadvertently removed all the defendants he originally sued. (Am. Compl.
2, Dkt. No. 8.) Mr. Meyer now seeks to correct the error in the operative complaint. (Dkt.
No. 8.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that after a party has used its
opportunity to amend its pleadings by right under Rule 15(a)(1), the party must seek leave
of court or the opposing party’s written consent. Because Mr. Meyer has already amended
his Complaint once and does not have the written consent of the opposing party,1 he must
obtain leave of Court.
1 By this Court’s count, all defendants besides a John Doe defendant from the FBI have
been dismissed from the case. (See Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 8; Order for Dismissal, Dkt. No.
Courts are encouraged to “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Courts have the discretion to allow an amendment, but they abuse
their discretion if they deny an amendment “unless there exists undue delay, bad faith,
repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice
to the non-moving party, or futility of the amendment.” Midwest Med. Sols., LLC v.
Exactech U.S., Inc., — F.4d —, 2024 WL 1043508, at *2 (8th Cir. Mar. 11, 2024) (quoting In re Target Corp. Secs. Litig.,955 F.3d 738, 744
(8th Cir. 2020)). In this case, the Court
finds that justice requires that all the parties Mr. Meyer seeks to sue be named in the
complaint. The Court does not find, at this time, that any of the conditions which counsel
against allowing the amendment exist.
Accordingly, based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Mr. Meyer’s First Motion to Amend the Complaint (Dkt. No. 40) is
GRANTED.
2. Mr. Meyer is directed to file his Second Amended Complaint on the docket.
Mr. Meyer is responsible for serving the Second Amended Complaint on
Defendants.
36.) That defendant will be dismissed from the case if Mr. Meyer files his proposed Second
Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 42.)
3. Mr. Meyer is excused from refiling his exhibits. However, he is expected to
file an exhibit list with his Second Amended Complaint. It will be a separate
document that lists his exhibits using the format below.
Exhibit Number Exhibit Title Dkt. No.
1. First Exhibit 46-1
4. The April 1, 2024 hearing on this Motion is CANCELED.
Date: March 22, 2024 s/ John F. Docherty
JOHN F. DOCHERTY
United States Magistrate Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
SCOTT MEYER, Case No. 24-CV-73 (DWF/JFD)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
GAYLA RAHN, Olmsted County Court
Clerk, KIM PIETRZAK, Olmsted County
Court Clerk, HANS HOLLAND,
OLMSTED COUNTY COURT, Court
Administration, JOHN/JANE DOE,
sued in their individual/personal and
official capacities,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s First Motion to Amend the Complaint
(Dkt. No. 40). In an amendment to his first complaint, Mr. Meyer added two new
defendants, but inadvertently removed all the defendants he originally sued. (Am. Compl.
2, Dkt. No. 8.) Mr. Meyer now seeks to correct the error in the operative complaint. (Dkt.
No. 8.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that after a party has used its
opportunity to amend its pleadings by right under Rule 15(a)(1), the party must seek leave
of court or the opposing party’s written consent. Because Mr. Meyer has already amended
his Complaint once and does not have the written consent of the opposing party,1 he must
obtain leave of Court.
1 By this Court’s count, all defendants besides a John Doe defendant from the FBI have
been dismissed from the case. (See Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 8; Order for Dismissal, Dkt. No.
Courts are encouraged to “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Courts have the discretion to allow an amendment, but they abuse
their discretion if they deny an amendment “unless there exists undue delay, bad faith,
repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice
to the non-moving party, or futility of the amendment.” Midwest Med. Sols., LLC v.
Exactech U.S., Inc., — F.4d —, 2024 WL 1043508, at *2 (8th Cir. Mar. 11, 2024) (quoting In re Target Corp. Secs. Litig.,955 F.3d 738, 744
(8th Cir. 2020)). In this case, the Court
finds that justice requires that all the parties Mr. Meyer seeks to sue be named in the
complaint. The Court does not find, at this time, that any of the conditions which counsel
against allowing the amendment exist.
Accordingly, based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Mr. Meyer’s First Motion to Amend the Complaint (Dkt. No. 40) is
GRANTED.
2. Mr. Meyer is directed to file his Second Amended Complaint on the docket.
Mr. Meyer is responsible for serving the Second Amended Complaint on
Defendants.
36.) That defendant will be dismissed from the case if Mr. Meyer files his proposed Second
Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 42.)
3. Mr. Meyer is excused from refiling his exhibits. However, he is expected to
file an exhibit list with his Second Amended Complaint. It will be a separate
document that lists his exhibits using the format below.
Exhibit Number Exhibit Title Dkt. No.
1. First Exhibit 46-1
4. The April 1, 2024 hearing on this Motion is CANCELED.
Date: March 22, 2024 s/ John F. Docherty
JOHN F. DOCHERTY
United States Magistrate Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown