Summary
This memorandum and order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York addresses a plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint adding corporate entities as defendants. The court determines that the applicable standard is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) rather than the stricter Rule 16(b)(4) because the initial scheduling order lacked explicit prohibitions on future amendments. Finding no undue prejudice or bad faith, the court grants the motion and sets a deadline for filing the amended complaint.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court should grant leave to amend the complaint under Rule 15(a)(2) in the absence of demonstrated prejudice or bad faith.
Holdings
- The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to amend because the scheduling order did not prohibit later amendments and Defendant has not shown undue prejudice, bad faith, or futility.
Key quotations
“Rule 15(a)(2) is a ‘liberal’ and ‘permissive’ standard, and the only ‘grounds on which denial of leave to amend has long been held proper’ are upon a showing of ‘undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, . . . futility,’”
Factual background
Plaintiff Stuart Finkelstein sued Defendant Lilaahar Bical for breach of contract and unpaid legal fees. After discovery began, Plaintiff sought to add corporate entities that may be liable for the same services, asserting that the original complaint did not include them. Defendant opposed, claiming undue delay and prejudice.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed complaint on Jan. 4, 2023; Defendant answered Feb. 13, 2023; scheduling order set discovery deadline but no deadline for amendments; Plaintiff moved for leave to amend on Nov. 18, 2024; Defendant opposed; Court considered Rule 15(a)(2) and relevant case law and granted the motion.