United States District Court, D. Minnesota
S. DOTY, JUDGE.
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.
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.
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
Standard of Review
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).
Motion to Amend
“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).
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.
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 ...