LANE v. CITY OF ROCKLAND et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
GLENNIS K. LANE, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:22-cv-00058-JAW
)
CITY OF ROCKLAND et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
ORDER
In response to the Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss, Glennis K. Lane has
filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint.1 	See Motion to Amend
(ECF No. 34); Proposed First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 34-1). The Defendants
oppose Lane’s motion on the ground that her proposed amendments are futile and do
not 	remedy 	the 	purported 	deficiencies 	raised 	in 	their 	motion 	to 	dismiss.2
See Opposition (ECF No. 35).
The Court has referred both the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and Lane’s
motion to amend to me. 	For the sake of efficiency, I conclude that it would be
preferable to address the merits of the Defendants’ futility argument in the context
of the motion to dismiss rather than the motion to amend; accordingly, I will GRANT
Lane’s motion to amend and will substitute her first amended complaint when
making a recommended decision on the motion to dismiss. 	See Fortuna v. Winslow
1 Lane previously filed an amended complaint, see ECF No. 23, but it was stricken for being filed
without leave, see ECF No. 40.
2 The Defendants do not oppose Lane’s proposed amended complaint to the extent it eliminates her
abuse of process claim. See Opposition at 1.
Case 2:22-cv-00058-SDN Document 41 Filed 01/06/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Sch. Comm., No. 1:21-cv-00248-JAW, 2022 WL 844046, at *3-4 (D. Me. Mar. 22, 2022)
(following the same procedure in similar circumstances). Lane is DIRECTED to file
her first amended complaint on the docket by January 13, 2023.
Because the legal standard is the same, see Glassman v. Computervision Corp.,
90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir. 1996) (“In reviewing for futility, the district court applies
the same standard of legal sufficiency as applies to a [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 12(b)(6) motion.”
(cleaned up)), and because Lane’s amended complaint supplements, rather than
drastically alters, her existing complaint, I will consider the arguments the parties
raised in their briefing on the motion to amend in combination with the arguments
they raised in their briefing on the motion to dismiss. The existing briefing appears
to be sufficient for me to recommend a decision on the motion to dismiss, but I will
give the parties until January 13, 2023, to notify me if they wish to supplement their
briefing in light of this order. See Fortuna, 2022 WL 844046, at *4.
NOTICE
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may
serve and file an objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to review by the District Court and to any further appeal of this order.
Dated: January 6, 2023
/s/ Karen Frink Wolf
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:22-cv-00058-SDN Document 41 Filed 01/06/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>