MEHIC v. DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE, 15-cv-12934-IT. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts
Number: infdco20160608a01
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jun. 07, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 07, 2016
Summary: ORDER INDIRA TALWANI , District Judge . Before the court is Plaintiff Sauda Mehic's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint for Damages [#38]. Plaintiff, now represented by counsel, seeks to replace her pro se complaint. The proposed amended complaint sets out Plaintiff's original allegations in distinct paragraphs, adds defendants, and sets forth additional claims. Defendant Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and proposed Defendants Melissa Chammas and Linda Sweeney do not attack the
Summary: ORDER INDIRA TALWANI , District Judge . Before the court is Plaintiff Sauda Mehic's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint for Damages [#38]. Plaintiff, now represented by counsel, seeks to replace her pro se complaint. The proposed amended complaint sets out Plaintiff's original allegations in distinct paragraphs, adds defendants, and sets forth additional claims. Defendant Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and proposed Defendants Melissa Chammas and Linda Sweeney do not attack the e..
More
ORDER
INDIRA TALWANI, District Judge.
Before the court is Plaintiff Sauda Mehic's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint for Damages [#38]. Plaintiff, now represented by counsel, seeks to replace her pro se complaint. The proposed amended complaint sets out Plaintiff's original allegations in distinct paragraphs, adds defendants, and sets forth additional claims. Defendant Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and proposed Defendants Melissa Chammas and Linda Sweeney do not attack the entirety of the proposed amended complaint, but do oppose the "majority" of it. Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. Leave to File First Am. Compl. [#42].
Plaintiff's motion is ALLOWED. Before filing, Plaintiff may omit from her proposed amended complaint any causes of action (in their entirety or as to particular Defendants) that Plaintiff no longer seeks to assert after careful review of Defendants' opposition to the motion to amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
