New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City v. Celgene…
New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund v. Celgene Corporation
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:24-cv-02230
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
New York Hotel Trades Council v. Celgene: Judge Ramos granted plaintiffs’ request to file a motion seeking a second amended complaint and set briefing deadlines.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the Celgene litigation; the plaintiffs may file a motion seeking permission to submit a second amended complaint.
What happened
In New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund v. Celgene Corporation, the plaintiffs sought permission to ask to file a second amended complaint after the court dismissed their claims.
The plaintiffs requested either a conference with the court or an order allowing them to file a motion for permission to amend. They said the proposed amendment would address problems identified in the court’s earlier dismissal ruling.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the request to file the motion and set deadlines for the moving papers, opposition, and reply. The order did not decide whether the second amended complaint itself could be filed.
The detailed version
- New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City v. Celgene… · No. 1:24-cv-02230
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 4, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs asked for a pre-motion conference or permission to file a motion seeking leave—meaning court authorization—to file a second amended complaint. Their request followed the court’s March 31, 2025 Opinion and Order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act and analogous state-law claims. That earlier ruling is referenced in the opinion but is not included in full here.
The plaintiffs argued that amendment should generally be allowed after dismissal and that their request was timely. They stated that the complaint had been amended only once by one set of plaintiffs, that defendants would not be prejudiced, and that the proposed amendment would attempt to cure deficiencies identified in the dismissal ruling.
Court’s Action
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the plaintiffs’ request to file a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The court set the following briefing schedule:
- Moving papers: May 2, 2025 - Opposition: May 23, 2025 - Reply: May 30, 2025
This order authorized the plaintiffs to file the motion; it did not grant leave to file the second amended complaint itself and did not rule on whether the proposed amendment would be allowed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.