Fiorito v. Metropolitan Council et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Michael Fiorito,
Plaintiff,
v.
Metropolitan Council,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-213 (DSD/DJF)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Michael Fiorito’s Motion for Acceptance of
Substantially Compliant Meet and Confer and Request for ADA Considerations (ECF No. 150)
(“Motion”). The Motion asks the Court to: (1.) accommodate Mr. Fiorito’s disabilities by allowing
him to file motions “immediately upon completion” without meeting and conferring with opposing
counsel; (2.) direct defense counsel to accommodate his disabilities by extending unspecified
timelines and using “patient communication”; (3.) allow Mr. Fiorito to file a motion to amend the
complaint; and (4.) file a motion to “correct misjoinder of parties.” Defendant objects to the first
two requests and states it will oppose a motion to amend the complaint. (ECF No. 163.)
Mr. Fiorito’s disabilities do not appear to interfere with his ability to repeatedly call the Court
to seek leave to file motions. (See ECF Nos. 148-49, 162.) The Court therefore does not believe he
is unable to meet and confer with opposing counsel before filing a motion. His first request is
DENIED. As to his non-specific accommodation request, the Court will only consider specific
accommodation requests on a case-by-case basis. His second request is DENIED.
Mr. Fiorito’s third request is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file a motion requesting permission
to amend the complaint, but it must be compliant with Local Rule 15.1 or the Court will deny it.
Moreover, the Court cautions that permission to file the motion not indicative of whether the motion
CASE 0:25-cv-00213-MJD-DJF Doc. 170 Filed 04/13/26 Page 1 of 2

will be granted or denied. Mr. Fiorito need not meet and confer with opposing counsel before filing
his motion to amend because Defendant has already stated on the record that it intends to oppose the
motion. Mr. Fiorito also need not file his motion to amend with a notice of hearing because the
Court will address the motion without a hearing based on the written submissions.
Mr. Fiorito’s fourth request seeking to file a motion to “correct misjoinder of parties” is
DENIED, to the extent he seeks relief other than permission to file an amended complaint. There
are no possible grounds to assert misjoinder of parties because Mr. Fiorito is the sole Plaintiff in this
action and, in light of previous dismissals, Metropolitan Council is the sole defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 13, 2026 	s/ Dulce J. Foster
DULCE J. FOSTER
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-00213-MJD-DJF Doc. 170 Filed 04/13/26 Page 2 of 2