Opinion ID: 4561306
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Relevance of the Second Amended Complaint

Text: As a threshold issue, we must consider whether to examine the first amended complaint or the second amended complaint. I would consider the allegations in the second amended complaint. The district court concluded that the proposed second amended complaint was “not the product of the Plaintiffs’ desire to cure deficiencies.” Appellants’ App’x, vol. 2 at 376. The majority also declines to consider the second amended complaint, reasoning that “the plaintiffs themselves explicitly denied that the [second amended complaint] would in any way cure deficiencies.” Majority Op. at 7. But the plaintiffs didn’t idly propose the amendments; instead, the plaintiffs proposed these amendments to cure any perceived shortcomings in the first amended complaint. As the majority points out, the plaintiffs did argue that the added details had already been encompassed in the first amended complaint. But the plaintiffs recognized that the employees had argued that gaps existed in 4 the allegations. So the plaintiffs said that they had rewritten the allegations to “summarize” or “better clarify” their allegations. Appellants’ App’x, vol. 1 at 131. The plaintiffs also stressed that these clarifications were designed to strengthen their claims against the six employees. For example, the plaintiffs argued to the district court that  “[t]he proposed Second Amended Complaint . . . attempts to resolve Defendants’ various issues with the operative [complaint]” and  “Plaintiffs have taken Defendants’ issues with the operative Complaint seriously, and the proposed Second Amended Complaint . . . attempt[s] to clarify allegations that Defendants have either asserted they find obscure, or that Defendants purport to have interpreted differently than Plaintiffs intended.” Id. at 128–29 (footnotes omitted). On appeal, the plaintiffs similarly maintain that the second amended complaint “enhanced” the claims against the individual defendants by making “more explicit” and “emphasiz[ing]” allegations encompassed in the first amended complaint. Appellants’ Opening Br. at 19–21. Given the plaintiffs’ explanation for the additional allegations, the six employees haven’t questioned the need to consider the second amended complaint. The employees instead try to rebut the substance of the second amended complaint. See Appellees’ Resp. Br. at 38 (responding to allegations in the second amended complaint). Yet the majority insists— sua sponte—that we should completely disregard the proposed 5 amendment’s additional allegations against the six employees. I would instead follow the lead of the six employees and consider those allegations.