Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bass v. Anoka County

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

December 22, 2016

Brooke Nicole Bass, Plaintiff,
v.
Anoka County, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          DAVID S. DOTY, JUDGE.

         This matter is before the court upon the appeal by plaintiff Brooke Nicole Bass of Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois' November 21, 2016, order denying the motion for leave to amend the complaint (Order). After a review of the Order, and based on the file, record, and proceedings herein, the court denies the appeal.

         BACKGROUND

         This privacy dispute arises out of defendants' access of the motor vehicle record of plaintiff Brooke Nicole Bass. Neither party objects to the magistrate judge's recitation of the facts or procedural posture of the case. The court will therefore proceed directly to the issues presented.

         The Order denied as futile Bass' motion to amend the complaint to name 57 individual defendants previously referred to as John or Jane Does, concluding that (1) any claims against such individuals are time-barred, (2) the proposed amended complaint does not relate back to the original complaint, (3) equitable tolling does not apply, and (4) the appeal in this matter did not toll the limitations period. Bass objects only to the Order's determinations regarding the doctrines of relation back and equitable tolling.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Standard of Review

         The standard of review applicable to an appeal of a magistrate judge's order on nondispositive matters is “extremely deferential.” Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F.Supp.2d 1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999). The court will reverse such an order only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); D. Minn. LR 72.2(a)(3).

         II. Motion to Amend

         The “court should freely give leave to a party to amend its pleadings when justice so requires; however, it may properly deny a party's motion to amend its complaint when such amendment ... would be futile.” Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). An amendment is futile when it would not survive a motion to dismiss. In re Senior Cottages of Am., LLC, 482 F.3d 997, 1001 (8th Cir. 2007).

         Bass acknowledges that the proposed amendments to the complaint relate to conduct that occurred more than four years before the date of the proposed amended complaint. In other words, absent application of the doctrines of relation back or equitable tolling, the claims are untimely and amendment would be futile.

         A. Relation Back

         Relevant here, an amended pleading will relate back to the date of an original pleading when:

[T]he amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted ... if, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment: (i) received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and (ii) knew or should have known that the action ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.