Andrew Leise v. Vermont Human Rights Commission, Kevin Christie, Bor Yang, Da Capo Publishing, Inc., and John and Jane Doe I-X

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Vermont denied Andrew Leise’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the federal due process claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Vermont tort claims, dismissing those claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. Leave to amend was denied because the proposed amendment merely reasserted claims previously dismissed, failed to present a new viable ground for liability, and, even assuming a new substantive due process theory, would cause undue and prejudicial delay.
2. Defendants were entitled to judgment on Counts I through III because the procedural due process claims had already been dismissed and the Second Circuit had held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the substantive due process claim.
3. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Vermont state-law tort claims and dismissed them for lack of jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff should be granted leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to file a third amended complaint.
2. Whether defendants were entitled to judgment on plaintiff's federal claims in Counts I through III after dismissal of the procedural due process claims and the Second Circuit's qualified-immunity ruling on the substantive due process claim.
3. Whether the district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Vermont state-law tort claims after dismissal of all claims within its original federal-question jurisdiction.

Disposition

dismissed