UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA
|MELODY ROGERS, Plaintiff, vs. LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT, EDELMAN CHILDREN’S COURT, LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES, DOES AGENTS, JOSEPH S. LEE, DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL, OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL LOS ANGELES, CHILDREN’S LAW CENTER OF CALIFORNIA, and MEL HATAMIAN, LAW OFFICES OF MEL HATAMIAN. Defendants||Case No.: 7:21-CV-223-M|
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD
COMES NOW Plaintiff, MELODY ROGERS, Pro-se hereby files this Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint pursuant to Rules 15(a) and 19(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the Complaint by adding the following Defendants:
- Kree Filer
- Rae’Shonda Levington.
Plaintiff also seeks to introduce additional exhibits to the Complaint. The additional exhibits include:
- Corresponence from Kree Filer.
- Kree Filer
Kree Filer (hereinafter “Kree”) is an attorney licensed in the California bar. Plaintiff avers that Kree is fraudulently representing her in a court hearing in Edelman Children’s in Los Angeles County California. There is no contract in which the Plaintiff has requested for Kree’s services, yet Kree still insists on representing the Plaintiff amidst Plaintiff’s objection to the representation. Further, Kree sends the Plaintiff paperwork from the opposing side, even when the Plaintiff has requested no contact from her. Kree contends that a judge appointed her to represent Plaintiff. It is worth noting that in her purported representation, Kree does not put forth any notable effort. Specifically, she does not do any proper legal research, does not present arguments backed by jurisprudence from the courts, and has refused to present the Plaintiff’s evidence. It is the Plaintiff’s contention that Kree intentionally prevents the Plaintiff from presenting a defensive argument in the case. Interestingly, the Plaintiff does not pay for Kree’s services. This means that Kree is accepting money from a third party, who directs Kree to make false claims against me. Plaintiff opposes such representation and seeks to have Kree stop making decisions on behalf of Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff therefore intends to sue Kree for fraudulent misrepresentation; violation of Plaintiff’s due process rights; fraud; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff intends to allege how Kree is part of a conspiracy to disparage the Plaintiff’s character so the state can take control of Plaintiff’s children and other private affairs. Further, it is essential to note that the Plaintiff has already suffered consequential and incidental to Kree’s actions. Notably, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress since she has been separated from her children. The emotional distress has also spilled over to the Plaintiff’s children, who long for the Plaintiff’s presence, especially on special occasions. Further, Plaintiff has undergone significant cost in hours spent in legal work, and legal fees.
- Rae’Shonda Levington
Rae’Shonda Levington (hereinafter “Levington”) is a social worker licensed in California. It is the Plaintiff’s contention that Levington appended her signature on a report whose contents were false, and were based on hearsay. The report alleged that the Plaintiff had harmed her children, and was violent with the children’s father. It is instrumental to note that Levington had no personal knowledge of the allegations in the report, yet she proceeded to sign the report. Further, Levington has made no effort to ascertain the veracity of the contents of the report or to correct the errors therein. She left out pertinent information, which would completely alter her allegations therein. The Plaintiff avers that it is Levington’s intention to take custody of the Plaintiff’s children and to violate Plaintiff’s right to privacy. Further, Plaintiff maintains that she has never entered any contract with Levington and has never received any services from her.
The Plaintiff therefore intends to sue Levington for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Plaintiff’s conduct amount to Honest Services Fraud and Plaintiff alleges that a criminal action should be instituted against her.
- Additional Exhibits
The Plaintiff intends to introduce additional exhibits for this court’s record. The Exhibit includes correspondence from Kree dated February 16, 2022. In the said letter, Kree informs the Plaintiff that she appeared on Plaintiff’s behalf in department 417 of the Edmund D. Edelman Children’s Courthouse. Kree further informed the Plaintiff that the matter had been continued to a future date, with threats that on the scheduled date, “the Court can and will proceed with the hearings even if [the Plaintiff is] not present.”
The Plaintiff seeks to introduce this evidence to show how Kree makes pertinent decisions alone, in her illegal representation of the Plaintiff. It is clear that the Plaintiff has lost control of the case due to Kree’s actions. It is worth noting that Plaintiff does not belong to the jurisdiction of the Court in the said children’s court since she resides in a different State. It is Plaintiff’s contention that Kree’s actions interfere with the Plaintiff’s career and artistic endeavor.
Rules 15(a) and 19(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. provides for amendments. The said provision states in pertinent part that, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”
Rule 19 (a), Fed. R. Civ. P. also states in that regard that: “A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if: (A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties…” Also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(2) provides that “If a person has not been joined as required, the court must order that the person be made a party.”
There is a “strong liberality . . . in allowing amendments under Rule 15(a).” Bechtel v. Robinson, 886 F.2d 644, 652 (3d Cir. 1989). It follows; Rule 15(a) should be liberally construed. Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986, 990 (5th Cir. 1981). Further, a “court may refuse a motion for leave to amend only in limited circumstances, such as when the amendment would cause undue delay; is offered in bad faith or with dilatory motive; or if the amendment is futile.” AT&T v. Marstan Indus. Inc., No. 93-2961, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8294 (E.D. Pa. 1994).
In the instant case, it would be in the interest of justice for the Court to grant Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint by adding the said Defendants and the additional evidence. Notably, the said Defendants participated in violating the Plaintiff’s due process rights. Therefore, the Plaintiff has a valid case against them. The evidence that Plaintiff seeks to introduce will also shed more light on Plaintiff’s case.
WHEREFORE, these premises considered, this Court should grant leave freely to amend the Complaint; and should accept the evidence attached into the Court’s records.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I, MELODY ROGERS, certified on this day of .2022, I deposited a true copy of the above by placing the documents with prepaid postage in the United States mailbox address to each person.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )