Stringer v. SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC

Background

Vickie M. Stringer filed a complaint against Simon & Schuster, Inc. The complaint alleges breach of contract, copyright infringement, fraudulent accounting, and unjust enrichment arising from publishing agreements. The motion states that the complaint was filed on January 20, 2025.

Requested clarification

Stringer, who identifies herself as proceeding without a lawyer, asked to revise the wording of paragraph 3 in the complaint’s facts section. The existing wording alleged that Simon & Schuster breached an amendment agreement by continuing to apply Stringer’s royalty earnings to prior debts and thereby reducing her royalties to zero. The proposed wording described the breach as failing to stop that practice despite the February 18, 2014 amendment’s alleged prohibition.

Stringer argued that the proposed change would improve accuracy, would not change the basic nature of her claims, would not add parties or alter the requested relief, and arose from the same operative facts. She also argued that the clarification should relate back to the original complaint’s filing date.

Order

The provided text does not expressly state that the motion to clarify was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part. Instead, after the motion, the order states that a plaintiff seeking to amend a complaint may do so without the court’s permission on or before 21 days after the defendant files an answer or a motion to dismiss. It also quotes the requirement that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the claim. The order ends with “SO ORDERED” and is dated May 28, 2025. The judge’s name is not legible or provided in the opinion text.