1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ )

DANNY BROWN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 09

- 1800 (RBW)

)

DISTRICT OF COLU MBIA, et al.

, )

)

Defendant s

. )

____________________________________)

ORDER

Upon the removal of this case from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

, the

defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or for a More Definite Statement pursua nt to Fed eral

Rules of Civil Procedure 8 (a) and 12(e)

, based on the plaintiff's alleged failure to file “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief

. ” The plaintiff filed

a statement opposing the defendant s ' rem oval of the case, but did not ad dress the defendants'

motion. In response, t he defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiff's statement on the issue of

whether removal of the case was proper

. S ee Defendants’ Memorandum o f Points a nd

Authorities i n Opp osition t o Plaintiff’s “Opposition” t o Defendants’ Notice o f Removal

. The

plaintiff then replied to the defendants ' opposition, again arguing that removal was improper, 1

1 The plaintiff’s submission was incorrectly docketed as his reply to the opposition statement filed in relation

to the defendants' motion to dismiss. See Docket Entry #6 (captioned as " R EPLY to opposition to motion re

MOTION to Dismiss and/or for More Definite Statement to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand filed by DANNY

BROWN ." (emphasis omitted)). It is apparent on the face of the record, however, that the plaintiff did not intend to

reply in support of the def endants' motion to dismiss. but again failing to oppose the substance of the defendant s ' motion to dismiss or for a more2 definite statement

. S ee Plaintiff’s Memorandum o f Points a nd Authorities i n Response t o

Defendants’ Opposition t o Plaintiff’s Motion t o Remand

. 2

Several months later

, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking to amend his complaint

. 3 See

generally Pla intiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. The defendants oppose this motion

on the grounds that it was untimely filed ; late amendments of pleadings are discouraged ; their

motion to dismiss should have been granted as conceded ; the delay in filing the motion was

unreasonable, unexcused, and prejudicial to the defendants ; and the plaintiff has not offered a

satisfactory explanation for needing to untimely amend the complaint

. 4

The plaintiff r epresents that the timing of his request for the amendment will not

prejudice the defendants, Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' [sic] Motion for Leave to File

Amended Complaint at 3, and the Court agrees. While t he defendants are co rrect that the motion

to amend has been untimely filed, their motion to dismiss essentially takes the position that a

more definite statement is warranted. Also, this case is still as its early stages , and when the

Court did not sua sponte grant their mot ion as conceded after the time for filling an opposition

had passed, the defendants did not affirmatively seek to have the Court act on their motion.

Moreover, courts are obliged to resolve cases on their merits instead of on technicalities.

Schiavone v. Fortune , 477 U.S. 21, 27 (1986) ( reiterating the general principle that " decisions on Defendants' O pposition

to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint at 2

- 4

.

2 A proposed order purporting to grant the plaintiff's motion for remand was filed along with his

memorandum. Although the plaintiff discussed his opposition to the removal of his case, he never filed a motion

with this Court seeking remand, and given his desire to now file an amended complaint with this Court under the

Federal Rules, the issue of remand appears moot.

3 On January 16, 2010, the plaintiff re

- filed filed his motion seeking to amend the complaint, but due to an

error with the filing of that motion , the plaintiff re

- filed the motion on January 19, 2010. The January 16 motion

was therefore rendered moot by the January 19 motion.

4 The Court also considered the Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Mot ion for Leave to Amend

Complaint in ruling on the plaintiff's motion.3 the merits are not to be avoided on the basis of ' mere technicalities. '" (quoting Foman v. Davis

,

371 U.S. 178, 181 (1962))). Given this factual and legal background, t he Court cannot find that

the defendants are substantially prejudiced by permitting the plaintiff to file his amended

complaint , warranting the resolution of this case on factors other than the merits

. The Court

therefore exercises its discretion to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint, which comports

with its obligation to " freely give leave [ to amend pleading s ] when justice so requires. " Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see Forman , 371 U.S. at 182 (indicating the preference for courts to provide a

plaint iff with " an opportunity to test his claim on the merits " in the absence of several equitable

factors ). A ccordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or for a More Definite Statement

is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE ; it is furth er

ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is GRANTED

and the proposed amended complaint attached to the plaintiff's motion is deemed filed

.

SO ORDERED this 2 8 th day of April , 20 10

.

_____/s/________________

REGGIE B . WALTON

United States District Judge