United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
Dennis Saylor IV United States District Judge.
an employment dispute. Plaintiff Carmine Federico has brought
this action against the Town of Rowley, his former employer,
and MaryBeth Wiser, his former supervisor. As originally
pleaded, the complaint brought five counts arising under the
Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a), the
Massachusetts Small Necessities Leave Act, Mass. Gen. Laws
ch. 149, § 52D, and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, § 1B.
has moved to amend the complaint to add claims for defamation
and violation of his right to due process. For the following
reasons, the motion will be denied.
filed the original complaint in this action in the Essex
County Superior Court on April 17, 2015. (Compl.). The Town
sent Federico a notice terminating his employment on June 3,
2015. (Def. SMF Ex. FF). At that time, Federico was entitled
to amend his complaint, as of right, pursuant to Mass. R.
Civ. P. 15. Federico did not amend the complaint at that
removed the case to this Court on June 17, 2015, on the basis
of federal-question jurisdiction. (Docket No. 1). On July 28,
2015, the Court entered a scheduling order stating that
“[e]xcept for good cause shown, no motions seeking
leave to . . . amend the pleadings to assert new claims or
defenses may be filed after September 30, 2015.”
(Docket No. 15). That deadline had been jointly proposed by
the parties. (Docket No. 9). The order further required that
the parties complete all fact discovery by March 1, 2016. The
Court later amended the scheduling order to require the
parties to file dispositive motions by May 31, 2016. On that
date, defendants moved for summary judgment.
27, 2016, counsel for Federico-John W. Davis, Suzanne L.
Herold, and Davis & Davis, P.C.-moved to withdraw from
their representation in this matter. In support of this
motion, counsel stated, “[t]here has been an
irretrievable breakdown of the attorney client relationship
and this office and its attorneys can no longer adequately
represent Carmen Federico (sic) in this matter.”
(Docket No. 25). The Court granted the motion. (Docket No.
September 16, 2016, nearly four months after former counsel
withdrew, current counsel entered a notice of appearance.
(Docket No. 34). The Court has granted multiple extensions of
time for responding to the motion for summary judgment
because of the change in counsel. (Docket No. 29, 32, 36).
finally responded to the motion for summary judgment on
October 3, 2016. (Docket No. 38). On October 14, defendants
filed a reply. (Docket No. 44). The Court heard oral argument
concerning the motion on November 16, 2016.
days earlier, on November 12, 2016, Federico filed the
present motion to amend the complaint. Federico did not file
a proposed amended complaint with the motion to amend, but
states that he seeks to amend in order to add claims for
defamation and a due process violation.
justification for the late-filed amendment, Federico's
current counsel states:
Mr. Federico's prior counsel did not carefully draft a
Complaint or seek to amend it in order to add all meritorious
claims on Mr. Federico's behalf . . . This is the
plaintiff's first and only motion seeking to amend his
Complaint. The plaintiff should not be prejudiced by his
former attorney's failure to include all meritorious
claims in this action.
(Pl. Mot. to Amend 2).