Julian v. Only What You Need, Inc.
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-09522
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Julian v. Only What You Need, Judge Roman granted amendment, denied dismissal as moot without prejudice, and allowed counsel withdrawal.
Kevin Julian, the individuals he seeks to represent, Only What You Need, Inc., and attorney Joshua Arisohn.
What happened
In Julian v. Only What You Need, Inc., Kevin Julian asked to amend his complaint, which alleged that Only What You Need, Inc. violated New York consumer-protection laws and breached warranty and other obligations. The defendant opposed the amendment and had moved to dismiss.
The court found that Julian had waited too long to seek amendment, but ruled that the delay was not accompanied by bad faith or unfair prejudice. It also concluded that the proposed allegations were not clearly futile and that arguments about their legal sufficiency could be addressed in a later motion to dismiss.
Judge Roman granted Julian leave to file an amended complaint, denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot without prejudice, and granted attorney Joshua Arisohn’s motion to withdraw. Julian was ordered to file the amended complaint by February 24, 2025, and the defendant was ordered to respond by March 24, 2025.
The detailed version
- Julian v. Only What You Need, Inc. · No. 7:23-cv-09522
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 23, 2025
Background
Kevin Julian, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, sued Only What You Need, Inc. The complaint alleged violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment. Julian moved for leave to file an amended complaint. The defendant opposed that motion and also had a motion to dismiss pending.
Amendment analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally permits a party to amend a pleading with the court’s permission, and courts ordinarily should grant permission when justice requires. The court found that Julian had unduly delayed seeking permission because he did not move to amend within the rule’s 21-day period for amendment as a matter of course and offered no persuasive explanation for the nine-month delay.
The court nevertheless ruled that delay alone was not enough to deny amendment. It found no allegation that Julian acted in bad faith and determined that the defendant would not suffer unfair prejudice. The proposed amended complaint conceded Julian’s claims for breach of the implied warranty and unjust enrichment, which the court said would reduce the defendant’s litigation burden rather than create new problems of proof.
The court also concluded that the proposed amendments were not futile. It declined to decide the defendant’s arguments about the sufficiency of the proposed allegations in detail, stating that those issues were better addressed in the anticipated motion to dismiss. The court noted that the proposed complaint responded to alleged deficiencies in the original complaint, including the defendant’s argument that Julian lacked a concrete injury for Article III standing. The proposed complaint alleged that the purchased product contained PFAs and that Julian therefore suffered an injury.
Rulings and case status
The court granted Julian’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. It ordered him to file that complaint by February 24, 2025, and ordered the defendant to answer or otherwise respond by March 24, 2025.
The court denied as moot without prejudice the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court also granted attorney Joshua Arisohn’s motion to withdraw and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate him from the action. The Clerk was further directed to terminate the motions listed at ECF Nos. 24, 30, and 35.
Judge Nelson S. Roman did not decide the ultimate merits of Julian’s statutory, warranty, or unjust-enrichment claims in this opinion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.