Phillips-Nania v. Appalachian Mountain Club et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
ERIK PHILLIPS-NANIA
v. Case No. 25-cv-137-JL-TSM
APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB
d/b/a AMC HIGHLAND CENTER AT
CRAWFORD NOTCH
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON
PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s renewed motion for leave to file a Third
Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 40), which is unopposed. For the reasons that follow, this court
recommends that the district judge grant Plaintiff’s motion.
BACKGROUND
On March 11, 2025, self-represented Plaintiff, Erik Phillips-Nania, filed this action in
Merrimack County Superior Court against the Appalachian Mountain Club d/b/a AMC Highland
Center at Crawford Notch (“AMC”) and the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights
(“NHCHR”). Doc. No. 3 at pgs. 194-98. Shortly thereafter, Phillips-Nania filed an Amended
Complaint against AMC and NHCHR. Doc. No. 3-1 at pgs. 164-85. AMC subsequently removed
the matter to this court on the basis of federal question and supplemental jurisdiction. Doc. No. 1.
On February 11, 2026, the court remanded Mr. Phillips-Nania’s claims against NHCHR to
the state Superior Court. See Doc. No. 36 at pg. 29; Doc. No. 38. It also denied Plaintiff’s then-
pending motion for leave to amend his complaint without prejudice to his ability to renew the
motion to address only his claims against AMC. See Doc. No. 36 at pgs. 28-29; Doc. No. 38. In
his present motion, Mr. Phillips-Nania renews his request for leave to file an amended complaint,
Case 1:25-cv-00137-JL-TSM Document 44 Filed 04/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to remove his claims and
allegations against NHCHR, present a short and plain statement of facts supporting his claims
against AMC, and eliminate legal conclusions from his factual allegations. Doc. No. 40 at pgs. 1-
2. AMC filed no opposition.
DISCUSSION
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) instructs that leave to amend be ‘freely give[n]
when justice so requires.’” Universal Trading & Inv. Co., Inc. v. Bureau for Representing
Ukrainian Interests in Int’l & Foreign Cts., 87 F.4th 62, 80 (1st Cir. 2023) (alteration in original)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)). However, “this does not mean . . . that a trial court must
mindlessly grant every request for leave to amend.” Id. (punctuation in original) (quoting Nikitine
v. Wilmington Tr. Co., 715 F.3d 388, 390 (1st Cir. 2013)). “[A] district court may deny leave to
amend when the request is characterized by undue delay, bad faith, futility, [or] the absence of due
diligence on the movant’s part.’” Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Nikitine, 715 F.3d at
390). “In sum, a request to amend requires the district court to ‘examine the totality of the
circumstances and to exercise its informed discretion in constructing a balance of pertinent
considerations.’” Mulder v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 865 F.3d 17, 20-21 (1st Cir. 2017) (quoting
Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24, 30-31 (1st Cir. 2006)).
The circumstances presented here support a ruling in Plaintiff’s favor. Pursuant to the
Scheduling Order governing this case, Mr. Phillips-Nania has until May 1, 2026 to amend his
pleadings. See Doc. No. 42 at pg. 2; End. Ord. dated 04/09/2026. Therefore, his motion is timely
and will not cause undue delay. Additionally, if granted, Plaintiff’s proposed amendment will
eliminate unnecessary allegations against NHCHR, reduce the operative complaint from
approximately 22 pages to approximately 12 pages, clarify the factual allegations supporting his
Case 1:25-cv-00137-JL-TSM Document 44 Filed 04/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
claims against AMC, and distinguish the relevant facts from Plaintiff’s legal assertions. Compare
Doc. No. 3-1 at pgs. 164-85 (operative complaint) with Doc. No. 40-1 (proposed Third Amended
Complaint). Finally, AMC does not challenge the proposed amendment on the grounds of bad faith
or futility. Accordingly, this court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion be granted.
CONCLUSION
For all the reasons described herein, this court recommends that the district judge grant
Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 40). Any objections to this
Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this notice. The
fourteen-day period may be extended upon motion. Failure to file any objection within the
specified time waives the right to appeal the district court’s Order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016). Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to this
Report and Recommendation “are subject to review in the district court” and any issues “not
preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.” Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat’l Ins. Co.,
617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Keating v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 848 F.2d
271, 275 (1st Cir. 1988)).
______________________________
Talesha L. Saint-Marc
United States Magistrate Judge
April 13, 2026
cc: Erik Phillips-Nania, pro se
Counsel of record
Case 1:25-cv-00137-JL-TSM Document 44 Filed 04/13/26 Page 3 of 3