Sterling Select II Advisory LLC v. Argus Information & Advisory Services
Sterling Select II Advisory LLC v. Argus Information & Advisory Services, LLC, et al.
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-02939
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Sterling Select II v. Argus, Judge Cronan set a schedule for Sterling to seek amendment and allowed sealed filings, without deciding whether amendment would be granted.
Sterling Select II Advisory LLC and the Argus Defendants—Argus Information & Advisory Services, LLC, Argus Information and Advisory Services, Inc., and TransUnion Intermediate Holdings, Inc.—are affected by the amendment briefing schedule. Trans Union and Trans Union LLC would be proposed additional or substituted defendants, but the order did not decide whether they would be added.
What happened
Sterling Select II Advisory LLC asked to pursue another amendment that would substitute Trans Union and Trans Union LLC for TransUnion Intermediate Holdings, Inc. The Argus Defendants opposed the request, arguing that it was too late, would prejudice them, and would be futile.
The court ordered Sterling Select II to file its proposed motion to amend by October 10, 2025. The Argus Defendants must respond by October 24, and Sterling Select II may reply by October 31. The order did not decide whether the amendment itself should be allowed.
Judge Cronan also found that the proposed amended complaint could be filed partly redacted publicly and in full under seal, and directed the clerk to close Docket Number 126. The court did not rule in this order on the parties’ underlying claims or on whether the proposed amendment would be futile.
The detailed version
- Sterling Select II Advisory LLC v. Argus Information & Advisory Services · No. 1:23-cv-02939
- John Cronan
- Oct. 2, 2025
Background
Sterling Select II Advisory LLC indicated that it intended to seek leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. The proposed amendment would substitute Trans Union and Trans Union LLC for TransUnion Intermediate Holdings, Inc. (TUIH). The Argus Defendants—Argus Information & Advisory Services, LLC, Argus Information and Advisory Services, Inc., and TUIH—opposed allowing Sterling Select II to pursue the amendment.
The Argus Defendants argued that Sterling Select II had delayed despite having information that could have led it to name Trans Union LLC earlier. They also argued that adding the proposed defendants would prejudice them by requiring additional litigation and potentially a new motion to dismiss. They further contended that the amendment would be futile because the proposed claims allegedly would rely on ownership or control of Argus rather than specific conduct by the TransUnion entities, and because the proposed entities allegedly were not parties to the agreements at issue. These were the Argus Defendants’ arguments; the order did not decide them.
Order
The court directed Sterling Select II to file its proposed motion to amend by October 10, 2025. The Argus Defendants must respond by October 24, 2025, and Sterling Select II may file a reply by October 31, 2025. Thus, the court established a briefing schedule for the proposed motion rather than granting or denying leave to amend.
The court also found the requested sealing of the proposed Amended Complaint appropriate. Sterling Select II may file a partially redacted version publicly and the complete unredacted version under seal. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Number 126.
Disposition and effect
This was a procedural order. It did not decide whether Sterling Select II may add Trans Union or Trans Union LLC, whether the proposed amendment would be futile, or whether any party prevailed on the underlying claims. Judge John P. Cronan’s order required the parties to follow the stated schedule and permitted the proposed complaint to be submitted in redacted and sealed forms.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.