Hubbuch v. Mullooly
- Barbara Moses
- 1:25-cv-05547
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hubbuch v. Mullooly, Judge Moses granted leave to file a second amended complaint without deciding whether it was legally sufficient.
Edward B. Hubbuch and the defendants—Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP, Amy Gavlik, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.—are affected. Hubbuch may proceed on the second amended complaint, while the defendants may still move to dismiss it.
What happened
Edward B. Hubbuch, proceeding without a lawyer, asked to replace his existing complaint with a proposed second amended complaint. Chase did not oppose the amendment but planned to seek dismissal, while the MJRF Defendants opposed it.
The court granted Hubbuch’s motion for leave to amend and made the second amended complaint the operative pleading. The court did not decide whether the amended claims were sufficient, and defendants retained the right to seek dismissal. Hubbuch was also ordered to file a redlined version, and defendants were ordered to answer or move against the amended complaint.
Judge Barbara Moses also directed the Clerk to close the motions listed at Dkts. 28, 53, and 67. The case therefore proceeds on the second amended complaint, subject to any later motions by defendants.
The detailed version
- Hubbuch v. Mullooly · No. 1:25-cv-05547
- Barbara Moses
- Oct. 20, 2025
Background
In August and September 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss Edward B. Hubbuch’s original complaint. Before those motions were decided, Hubbuch moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) for permission to file a proposed second amended complaint. Hubbuch is proceeding without a lawyer.
The defendants took different positions on the proposed amendment. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. said it did not oppose the amendment but intended to move to dismiss the second amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP and Amy Gavlik opposed filing the proposed pleading. They argued that Hubbuch principally sought to strengthen a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim against Chase, although they acknowledged that the proposed pleading also added facts concerning claims against them under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state law.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that an action can have only one operative complaint at a time. Because the defendants had inconsistent positions about the proposed amendment, the court could not honor all of their preferences simultaneously. The court also considered that a complaint filed without a lawyer generally should be allowed at least one opportunity to be amended before dismissal.
The court did not decide whether the second amended complaint stated valid claims. It stated that it made no finding about the pleading’s sufficiency and that the defendants could still move to dismiss it. The court also noted that, at the amendment stage, it had to accept Hubbuch’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true, subject to the stated exceptions.
Ruling and Required Filings
Judge Barbara Moses granted Hubbuch’s motion for leave to amend, without prejudice to the defendants’ right to move to dismiss the second amended complaint. The second amended complaint at Dkt. 68-1 became the operative pleading. Hubbuch was required to submit a redlined version by October 24, 2025, and the defendants were required to answer or move against the second amended complaint by October 31, 2025. The Clerk was directed to close the motions at Dkts. 28, 53, and 67. The opinion also states that the earlier motions to dismiss the original complaint had been denied as moot before this ruling.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.