Opinion
22-CV-3022-FB-MMH
06-27-2024
STACY BLAIN, PH.D., Plaintiff, v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, WAYNE RILEY, HEIDI ARONIN, DAVID CHRISTINI, VITALY CITOVSKY, RICHARD GRONOSTAJSKI, PATRICIA KANE, FRANK MIDDLETON, SHOSHANA MILSTEIN, LAURIE READ, DAVID SCHOENHAUT, MARK STEWART, AND WILLIAM VERSFELT, Defendants.
For the Plaintiff: JIM WALDEN Walden Macht & Haran LLP For Defendant David Schoenhaut: NICHOLAS J. EVANOVICH LaMarche Safranko Law, PLLC For Defendant Mark Stewart: SAMUEL SHAPIRO Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP
For the Plaintiff: JIM WALDEN Walden Macht & Haran LLP
For Defendant David Schoenhaut: NICHOLAS J. EVANOVICH LaMarche Safranko Law, PLLC
For Defendant Mark Stewart: SAMUEL SHAPIRO Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
FREDERIC BLOCK, Senior United States District Judge
Stacy Blain, Ph.D. (“Plaintiff”) moves, pursuant to Local Rule 6.3, for reconsideration of the Court's order prohibiting further amendments to the pleadings so that she may cure the factual deficiencies in her Complaint that prompted the Court's dismissal of her claims against Defendants David Schoenhaut and Mark Stewart. She alternatively requests that the Court enter a partial final judgment dismissing Defendants David Schoenhaut and Mark Stewart.
For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motions are both DENIED.
* * *
The crux of Plaintiff's motion is whether she exhausted her right to amend her complaint as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1) when she amended her complaint by consent under Rule 15(a)(2). See Davis v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs. Inc., No. 21-CV-7090 (PGG) (BCM), 2023 WL 6150009, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2023) (recognizing that “the Second Circuit has not addressed the issue, and there is no consensus on the point among the district courts within our Circuit”). The Court holds that she did. See Adams v. Tops Markets, LLC, No. 21-CV-753 (JLS) (HKS), 2023 WL 4828029, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. July 7, 2023) (“In the absence of controlling precedent, the Court concludes that, by filing her first amended complaint pursuant to a stipulation, [Plaintiff's] right to amend as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1) was extinguished.”). The Court separately declines to reconsider its decision to bar further amendment by leave.
Plaintiff's alternative request to enter partial final judgment is without merit. Permitting a piecemeal appeal here would not “advance the interests of sound judicial administration or efficiency” as “closely related issues remain to be litigated” against the remaining Defendants. See Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, 642 F.3d 304, 311, 313 (2d Cir. 2011) (holding that district court abused its discretion in granting motion for partial final judgment).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and for entry of partial judgment are both DENIED.
SO ORDERED.