Menzel v. Roadget Business Pte. Ltd.
- John Koeltl
- 1:24-cv-00860
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Menzel v. Roadget, Judge Cave granted Menzel’s unopposed request to file a second amended complaint adding defendants and copyright claims.
Christina Menzel, the existing defendants, Fashion Direct Corp., and the newly added defendants Guangzhou Shein International Import & Export Limited and Shenhe International Holding Group Co., Ltd.
What happened
In Menzel v. Roadget Business Pte. Ltd., Christina Menzel asked to file a second amended complaint. She proposed adding Guangzhou Shein International Import & Export Limited and Shenhe International Holding Group Co., Ltd. as defendants, adding copyright-infringement claims against them, identifying additional products, and removing Fashion Direct Corp. as a defendant.
The defendants did not oppose the request. The court found no showing of undue delay, bad faith, or prejudice, and concluded that the proposed changes were not plainly futile based on the discovery completed so far.
Judge Cave granted the motion. Menzel had to file the proposed complaint by November 21, 2024; the existing defendants had to respond within 14 days after service; and Menzel had to serve the new defendants by December 2, 2024. The new defendants then had 21 days after service to respond.
The detailed version
- Menzel v. Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. · No. 1:24-cv-00860
- John Koeltl
- Nov. 19, 2024
Background
On October 28, 2024, Christina Menzel moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) for permission to file a second amended complaint. Rule 15(a)(2) generally provides that courts should freely allow amendments when justice requires.
Menzel’s proposed amendments would: (1) add Guangzhou Shein International Import & Export Limited and Shenhe International Holding Group Co., Ltd. as defendants; (2) add copyright-infringement claims against those defendants; (3) identify additional allegedly infringing products; and (4) remove Fashion Direct Corp. as a defendant. The defendants neither stipulated to nor opposed the motion.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that leave to amend generally should be denied only for a substantial reason, such as undue delay, bad faith, futility, or prejudice to the opposing party. Because the defendants did not respond, they had not shown that Menzel unduly delayed, acted in bad faith or for a dilatory purpose, or caused them prejudice.
The court also found that the proposed amendments were not so plainly futile that allowing them would be improper, particularly in light of the discovery conducted in the case so far. The court therefore concluded that Menzel satisfied the liberal standard for amendment under Rule 15(a)(2).
Order
Judge Cave granted Menzel’s unopposed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The court ordered:
- Menzel had to separately file the proposed second amended complaint as the operative pleading by November 21, 2024. - The existing defendants had to respond within 14 days after service. - By December 2, 2024, Menzel had to serve Guangzhou Shein and Shenhe with the summons and second amended complaint and file proof of service. - Guangzhou Shein and Shenhe had to respond within 21 days after service.
The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion docket entry, ECF No. 80.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.