Naca v. Macalester College, 0:16-cv-03263

Plaintiff Kristin Naca (represented by Peter Nickitas) sought leave to file a third amended complaint; Magistrate Judge Thorson denied the motion to amend.
Nickitas filed an objection to that denial that exceeded the district’s Local Rule word limit; the court struck the objection.
Naca moved for leave to refile the objection late but offered no explanation for the Local Rule violations.
The proposed amendments sought to add FMLA entitlement claims (including alleged failures to inform and denials of leave) and disparate-impact and accommodation-related allegations tied to her termination.
Naca also objected to a magistrate judge’s discovery order, but that objection was untimely under the Local Rules.
The district court denied the motion to refile, affirmed the magistrate judge’s discovery order, and ordered counsel to show cause why he should not pay $1,000 to defendant for fees caused by repeated Local Rule violations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to refile/late objection under Local Rule 72.2	Leave to file late objection should be allowed; substantive objection attached	Objection violated Local Rules; no justification for late/refiling	Denied: no excuse given; struck as untimely and noncompliant
Denial of motion to amend — FMLA entitlement claim (relation back & limitations)	FMLA claim relates back to earlier pleading; some violations within limitations	Many alleged violations are time‑barred; omission claim does not relate back and limitations run from date of violation	Overruled amendment: omission claim does not relate back and is time‑barred; related claims fail for lack of timely denied leave or connection to termination
Disparate‑impact claim under Title VII/ADA	General challenge to college ‘practices’ (e.g., promotion timing) shows disparate impact	Plaintiff fails to identify a specific, facially neutral policy or practice causing disparate impact	Dismissed as futile: plaintiff did not plead a specific neutral policy; also failed to exhaust administrative remedies for related claims
Objection to magistrate’s discovery order (timeliness and merits)	Objection to Oct. 25, 2017 discovery order challenges magistrate’s rulings	Defendant says objections were untimely and magistrate’s order was correct	Overruled: untimely objection; on merits, no showing magistrate’s order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law

Magee v. Trs. of the Hamline Univ., 957 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (D. Minn. 2013) (de novo review applies when amendment would be futile)
Alpern v. Utilicorp United, Inc., 84 F.3d 1525 (8th Cir. 1996) (relation‑back analysis for amended pleadings focuses on whether amended claims arise from same general fact situation)
Reed v. Lear Corp., 556 F.3d 674 (8th Cir. 2009) (FMLA violation occurs when employer improperly denies a request for leave)
Ridenour v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., 679 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2012) (arguments not presented to the magistrate cannot be raised later)
Zean v. Fairview Health Servs., 858 F.3d 520 (8th Cir. 2017) (court may consider documents incorporated by reference when assessing futility of amendment)
Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2010) (an amendment is futile if it could not survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
Franklin v. Local 2 of the Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n, 565 F.3d 508 (8th Cir. 2009) (disparate‑impact prima facie case requires identifiable, facially neutral policy or practice)