Schuman v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-00666
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Schuman v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Judge Woods dismissed two claims as beyond amendment permission but granted leave to seek permission to amend again.
The ruling directly affected Plaintiff Ira Schuman’s claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment, as well as the defendants’ responses to any future motion seeking permission to add those claims.
What happened
Schuman v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. concerns claims in Plaintiff Ira Schuman’s Third Amended Complaint against Visa U.S.A., Inc., InComm Financial Services, Inc., and Pathward, N.A. The court had previously allowed Schuman to amend only his New York General Business Law Section 349 claims and related deficiencies.
The court ruled that Schuman’s claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment went beyond that permission. The court also rejected, for purposes of this order, Schuman’s argument that he could file the Third Amended Complaint as a matter of course because the deadline to do so had passed.
Judge Woods dismissed those two causes of action and granted Schuman’s request for permission to move for leave to amend them. The deadline to file that motion was set for August 15, 2025, with defendants’ oppositions due August 29 and any reply due September 5.
The detailed version
- Schuman v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-00666
- Gregory Woods
- July 25, 2025
Background
Ira Schuman filed a Third Amended Complaint against Visa U.S.A., Inc., InComm Financial Services, Inc., and Pathward, N.A. The court’s earlier permission to amend the Second Amended Complaint was limited to Schuman’s claim under Section 349 of the New York General Business Law and to deficiencies identified in the court’s ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss the Section 349 claims.
Issue
The issue was whether Schuman could include claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment in the Third Amended Complaint. The court had issued an order to show cause concerning those claims. Schuman argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) allowed him to amend the complaint as a matter of course. The court stated that, even assuming that rule could permit amendment after an earlier amendment under Rule 15(a)(2), the 21-day deadline following service of defendants’ Rule 12 motion had already passed. The motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint had been filed on September 3, 2024.
Ruling
The court dismissed the causes of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment because they exceeded the scope of the permission to amend. The court granted Schuman’s request for leave to move for permission to amend the Third Amended Complaint to add those causes of action. The motion deadline was August 15, 2025; defendants’ oppositions were due August 29, 2025; and any reply was due September 5, 2025. Judge Gregory H. Woods entered the order on July 25, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.