NEVILLE v. GILL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
STEVEN NEVILLE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-00043-SEB-MJD
)
MICHAEL KEVIN GILL, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion for leave to file an amended
counterclaim. [Dkt. 44.] The motion was filed on October 21, 2025, after the applicable
deadline of August 14, 2025, and therefore may only be granted for good cause. The Court finds
good cause to permit the amendment because doing so will clarify the claims of Defendant and
permit a more orderly dispositive motions process. The proposed amended counterclaim changes
some of the legal bases for the claims asserted by Defendant, although the underlying facts
remain basically the same. As the Seventh Circuit has emphatically stated:
We have made this point repeatedly: "The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do
not require a plaintiff to plead legal theories." 	Chessie Logistics Co. v. Krinos
Holdings, Inc., 867 F.3d 852, 859 (7th Cir. 2017), quoting Vidimos, Inc. v. Laser
Lab Ltd., 99 F.3d 217, 222 (7th Cir. 1996), accord, e.g., Johnson v. City of Shelby,
574 U.S. 10, 10-11, 135 S. Ct. 346, 190 L.Ed.2d 309 (2014) (per curiam)
(summarily reversing dismissal based on failure to identify legal theory in
complaint); Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 529-30, 537, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 179
L.Ed.2d 233 (2011) (reversing dismissal); Zimmerman v. Bornick, 25 F.4th 491,
Case 1:25-cv-00043-SEB-MJD Document 47 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

492-94 (7th Cir. 2022) (allowing amendment of complaint); Beaton v. SpeedyPC
Software, 907 F.3d 1018, 1023 (7th Cir. 2018) ("As the Supreme Court and this
court constantly remind litigants, plaintiffs do not need to plead legal theories.").
Also, when a complaint does present legal theories, those theories may later be
altered or refined. Chessie Logistics, 867 F.3d at 859.
Zall v. Standard Ins. Co., 58 F.4th 284, 295 (7th Cir. 2023). 	Therefore, Gill could have changed
the legal theories he is asserting in this case in his response to Kinnard's motion for summary
judgment. See CMFG Life Insurance Co. v. RBS Securities, Inc., 799 F.3d 729, 743-44 (7th Cir.
2015) (plaintiff did not inappropriately add new claim during summary judgment briefing when
factual basis was alleged in complaint); Whitaker v. Milwaukee County, 772 F.3d 802, 808-09
(7th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff should have been permitted to proceed on new summary judgment
theory that recharacterized already-alleged facts and did not offer "any unfair surprise").
The Court finds it to be in the interests of judicial economy to permit the requested
amendment, which will permit Counterclaim Defendants to file motions for summary judgment
that address the claims Gill is actually asserting in this case. Accordingly, the motion to amend,
[Dkt. 44], is GRANTED and the Clerk is directed to file the Amended Counterclaim, which
is found at Docket Numbers 46-1, -2, -3, and -4. In light of this ruling, Kinnard's motion for
summary judgment, [Dkt. 36], is DENIED AS MOOT without prejudice to its resubmission in
compliance with the March 6, 2026 deadline set forth in the Court's June 30, 2025 Order Setting
Pretrial Schedule and Discussing Discovery [Dkt. 32 at 4].
In his reply in support of the instant motion, Gill also moves for disqualification of
Kinnard as Neville's attorney in this case. A motion may not be asserted in a reply brief. See
Local Rule 7-1(a) ("A motion must not be contained within a brief, response, or reply to a
previously filed motion, unless ordered by the court."). In any event, the Court has not
Case 1:25-cv-00043-SEB-MJD Document 47 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

determined that disqualification is appropriate at this time, although that may change as the case
progresses.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 4 FEB 2026
Distribution:
All ECF-registered counsel of record via email
MICHAEL KEVIN GILL
5138 Arabian Run
Indianapolis, IN 46228
Case 1:25-cv-00043-SEB-MJD Document 47 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>