Juana Gonzalez-Koeneke v. Donald West
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11372
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Juana Gonzalez-Koeneke, a Rockford School District bus driver, alleged race/national-origin/color discrimination and retaliation after suspensions (2005, 2011), loss of her bus-driver permit, and eventual termination.
- She filed suit pro se under Title VII/§ 1981/§ 1983; retained counsel at various points and ultimately filed a second amended complaint adding constitutional and § 1981 claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for multiple pleading deficiencies; Gonzalez-Koeneke responded but did not explain how she would cure alleged defects or request leave to amend in her response.
- The district court granted the motion, dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, and relied on a standing order stating dismissal would be with prejudice unless the plaintiff requested leave to amend in her response.
- Gonzalez-Koeneke moved under Rule 60(b)(6) to set aside judgment and for leave to file a third amended complaint; the district court denied the motion because she never explained how amendment would cure the deficiencies.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion where the plaintiff never proposed or explained how an amendment would cure the pleading defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was improper | Gonzalez-Koeneke argued dismissal with prejudice was unfair; sought another chance because current counsel only had one attempt | Defendants argued plaintiff failed to request leave to amend or show how amendment would cure defects | Affirmed: dismissal with prejudice was proper because plaintiff never explained how amendment would cure deficiencies and waived challenge to merits of dismissal |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying post-judgment motion to amend (Rule 60) | Plaintiff claimed Rule 60 relief and opportunity to amend were warranted; prior counsel’s shortcomings justify another attempt | Defendants pointed to lack of proposed amended complaint and failure to identify corrective amendments | Affirmed: denial proper—plaintiff did not attach a proposed amended complaint or describe how claims would be fixed |
| Whether standing order requiring request to amend in response to 12(b)(6) motion invalidated Rule 15 liberal standard | Plaintiff suggested standing order conflicted with Rule 15 and barred her amendment right | Defendants relied on standing order and plaintiff’s failure to comply | Court did not decide the standing-order validity; affirmed on independent ground that plaintiff failed to show cure; noted Runnion warning about standing orders that effectively override Rule 15 |
| Whether dismissal was a sanction requiring "delay or contumacious conduct" standard | Plaintiff argued that dismissal with prejudice should require sanction-level findings (delay/contumacious conduct) | Defendants argued dismissal here was under Rule 15 principles, not as a sanction | Held: sanction standard inapplicable; Rule 15 liberal-amendment principles govern and were not nullified because plaintiff never indicated how she'd amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (Rule 15’s mandate to freely give leave to amend ordinarily must be heeded)
- Runnion ex rel. Runnion v. Girl Scouts of Greater Chicago & NW Ind., 786 F.3d 510 (7th Cir. 2015) (district court cannot nullify Rule 15’s liberal amendment right by entering judgment at dismissal; must still articulate grounds such as futility)
- Indep. Trust Corp. v. Stewart Info. Servs. Corp., 665 F.3d 930 (7th Cir. 2012) (review of dismissal-with-prejudice treated for abuse of discretion; denying leave to amend is permissible when plaintiff offers no indication of how it would plead differently)
- Twohy v. First Nat’l Bank of Chicago, 758 F.2d 1185 (7th Cir. 1985) (even after entry of judgment, Rule 15’s liberal standard for amendment still controls if Rule 59/60 requirements are met)
- Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2008) (district courts may deny leave to amend for undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, or futility)
- Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2009) (denial of reconsideration and leave to amend affirmed where plaintiff did not attach proposed amendment or specify exact nature of amendments)