Doe v. Shridharani

Background

Plaintiff Jane Doe submitted a request to amend her complaint in response to a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Sachin Shridharani and Luxurgery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. The parties had used time in the case for court-referred mediation and exchanging information.

Proposed Amendment

According to Doe’s filing, defendants’ motion sought dismissal of all of her statutory and common-law tort claims except Count I under New York Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51. Based on defendants’ representations that the grounds for those tort claims and the requested damages were covered by the statutory privacy claim, Doe omitted those claims from the proposed amended complaint. She also omitted her claim under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules section 4504, omitted claims against Advarra because those claims had been resolved, and omitted claims against Sientra because Sientra had filed for bankruptcy. The proposed amended complaint added Count II, a breach-of-contract claim based on the Study Informed Consent Form, which Doe said governed the terms for taking and using photographs of her.

Ruling

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint and required her to file the amended complaint no later than October 20, 2025. Because Doe would file an amended complaint, the court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, docket number 57, without prejudice. The court directed the parties to file a joint status report with a proposed briefing schedule by October 27, 2025, if defendants wished to move to dismiss the amended complaint.