Page 22004
U.S.
Dist.
LEXlS
15400,
*
an application for a building permit and plaintiff wouldpay the cost for an architectural firm to certify BOCAcompliance. The firm was approved by defendant and,upon submission of the firm's report, the Township is-sued a foundational permit on August 28,2003, authoriz-ing plaintiff to build the foundation to support the mem-brane structure. Thereafter, it issued a Building Permitauthorizing plaintiff to erect the proposed sanctuary.On June 4, 2004, plaintiff filed a Motion for Leaveto Supplement its First Amended Complaint to includeparagraphs referring to the settlement conference andhow the concessions made by the Township establishthat defendants had the authority to waive its applicationrequirements. The undersigned held oral argument onJune 17, 2004 and, subsequently, both
[*4]
parties filedpost-argument briefs. The Court now considers whetherPlaintiffs request for leave to supplement the AmendedComplaint should be granted.11. DISCUSSIONPlaintiff seeks leave to supplement its AmendedComplaint with references to the settlement proceedingsheld before this Court
'
in order to prove that defendantsrepeatedly denied, in their responsive pleading and dis-covery responses, that they had the authority to grantwaivers of various requirements.
'
I
Specifically, plaintiff seeks to add the follow-ing paragraphs:
9
I. In or about March 2003, plaintiff filed itsComplaint against the Defendant Township, andin or about February 2004 plaintiff filed its FirstAmended Complaint. In its responsive pleadingsand discovery responses, defendants have repeat-edly denied that defendant Concord Township, byand through its Board of Supervisors, had the au-thority to grant a waiver or waivers of variouspermitting requirements such as land develop-ment or land disturbance permits, and/or a specialexception
....
92. At a conference held before MagistrateJudge Charles
B.
Smith on June 23,2003, Defen-dant Concord Township, by and through its coun-sel, agreed to afford plaintiff a procedure to ob-tain a building permit which would permit theplaintiff to construct the proposed temporarysanctuary in question, which procedure did notinclude any requirements that plaintiff complywith various local building requirements such asa the need to obtain a land development permit,land disturbance permit, and/or special exception.93. Plaintiff availed itself of the opportunityafforded by Defendant Township and the Defen-dant Township officials, and the DefendantTownship did,
in
fact, thereafter issue a founda-tional permit to Plaintiff on or about August
28,
2003 authorizing the Plaintiff to build the founda-tion to support the membrane structure
....
94.
Thereafter the Defendant Township is-sued a building permit to the plaintiff authorizingthe plaintiff to erect the proposed sanctuary.
95.
Both the foundational permit and thebuilding permit issued to the plaintiff were issuedunder
a
process which did not require Plaintiff tocomply with various local building requirementssuch
as
the need to obtain a land developmentpermit, land disturbance permit or a special ex-ception
....
96.
As permitted by the foundational permitand the building permit, the plaintiff has begunthe construction of its proposed 620-seat sanctu-ary.97. In light of the explicit representations andactions on behalf of defendants before this Courtincluding the explicit waiver of various permit-ting requirements, defendant should be and/or ju-dicially and/or equitably estopped from denyingsuch authority
in
this case.
[*51
2 In its Answer to the Complaint, the Townshipdenied that there was "any alternative procedurefor reviewing and granting requests for buildingpermits." and that "any procedure resemblingwhat Plaintiff refers to
as
'the expedited permitapproval procedure' exists within Concord Town-ship." Answer to Complaint. at par. 24.
Federal Rule
of
Civil Procedure
15(d)
states that:Upon motion of a party the court may,upon reasonable notice and upon suchterms as are just, permit the party to servea supplemental pleading setting forthtransactions or occurrences or eventswhich have happened since the date of thepleading sought to be supplemented.The Supreme Court has held that "leave to amend 'shallbe freely given when justice so requires."'
Foman
v.
Davis,
371
U.S.
178,
182, 83
S.
Ct.
227, 230,
9
L.
Ed.
2d222 (1962).
"In the absence of any apparent or declaredreason
-
such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motiveon the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure defi-ciencies by amendments previously allowed, [*6] undueprejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance ofthe amendment, futility of the amendment, etc.--the leave
Leave a Comment