Apica Sellers Representative, LLC v. Abbott Laboratories

No. 23-CV-01034-MMG-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · November 25, 2025 · No. 23-CV-01034-MMG-OTW

Summary

The court grants Apica Sellers Representative, LLC’s motion, construed as a motion for leave to amend under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 21, to join Seroba Kernel Life Sciences Fund II Limited Partnership and TriVentures Fund II LP as additional plaintiffs. The court finds good cause under Rule 16 because Plaintiff acted diligently and Defendant would not suffer undue prejudice, and directs Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by December 19, 2025.

Holdings

  1. A motion seeking to add parties must be treated as a motion for leave to amend when joinder requires filing an amended pleading.
  2. Plaintiff demonstrated good cause under Rule 16(b)(4) to amend after the scheduling-order deadline.
  3. Leave to amend was appropriate because Defendant would not suffer undue prejudice and no sufficient reason existed to deny amendment.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff's motion to join Seroba and TriVentures should be construed as a motion for leave to amend the complaint.
  2. Whether Plaintiff established good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to modify the expired deadline for joining parties or amending pleadings.
  3. Whether amendment should be denied because of undue delay, bad faith, futility, or undue prejudice under Rule 15(a)(2).

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (22)

  • Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal Music Group, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 408, 412 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2008)(followed)
  • Soler v. G & U, Inc., 86 F.R.D. 524, 528 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)(followed)
  • Williams v. Rosenblatt Securities Inc., 14-CV-4390 (JGK), 2016 WL 590232, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2016)(followed)
  • Williams v. Citigroup Inc., 659 F.3d 208, 212-13 (2d Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Soroof Trading Dev. Co., Ltd. v. GE Microgen, Inc., 283 F.R.D. 142, 147 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)(followed)
  • Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1969)(followed)
  • McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)(followed)
  • Parker v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 204 F.3d 326, 339-40 (2d Cir. 2000)(followed)
  • Grochowski v. Phoenix Construction, 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir. 2003)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 22.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…