Reveron v. Spreadshirt, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-04093
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Reveron v. Spreadshirt, Judge Cronan denied Reveron’s amendment motion without prejudice, allowing renewal within ten days after adopting Judge Tarnofsky’s recommendation.
The ruling directly affected Stephanie M. Reveron’s request to amend her complaint and set deadlines concerning Walmart-Stores, Inc.’s pending motion to dismiss. It also addressed claims against the other defendants to the extent the court warned that the dismissal grounds might apply to them.
What happened
In Reveron v. Spreadshirt, Inc., Stephanie M. Reveron asserted trademark infringement, unfair competition, and unjust-enrichment claims. Walmart-Stores, Inc. moved to dismiss, and Reveron asked to amend her complaint instead of opposing that motion.
A magistrate judge recommended denying Reveron’s request to amend. No one objected before the deadline, so the parties waived their right to object to the recommendation or seek appellate review of it. The district court nevertheless reviewed the recommendation in detail.
Judge John P. Cronan adopted the recommendation and denied Reveron’s motion to amend without prejudice. He allowed her to file a renewed amendment motion within ten days if she could fix the identified problems; otherwise, she had to oppose Walmart-Stores, Inc.’s dismissal motion by December 27, 2024.
The detailed version
- Reveron v. Spreadshirt, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-04093
- John Cronan
- Dec. 10, 2024
Background
Stephanie M. Reveron, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Walmart-Stores, Inc. moved to dismiss the complaint. Rather than oppose that motion, Reveron requested permission to file an amended complaint and submitted a proposed version.
Report and Recommendation
The case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky for general supervision of pretrial proceedings and for a report and recommendation on dispositive motions. Judge Tarnofsky recommended denying Reveron’s motion to amend. The recommendation advised the parties that they had fourteen days after service to object and warned that failing to object would waive the right to object.
The docket showed that the recommendation was entered on November 19, 2024, and mailed to Reveron on November 20, 2024. No objections were filed by the deadline. The district court therefore stated that the parties had waived their right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review of it. The court nevertheless conducted a de novo review, meaning an independent review, and found the recommendation well reasoned and supported.
Ruling
Judge John P. Cronan adopted Judge Tarnofsky’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court denied Reveron’s motion for leave to amend without prejudice. The order allowed Reveron to file a renewed motion within ten days if she could remedy the deficiencies identified in the recommendation.
If Reveron did not file a renewed motion by that deadline, the court directed her to oppose Walmart-Stores, Inc.’s motion to dismiss by December 27, 2024. The court stated that any opposition should address why the grounds raised in the dismissal motion and the recommendation’s analysis of whether amendment would be futile did not require dismissal of her claims against all defendants. The opinion did not decide the pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.