Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury LLC
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:22-cv-01687
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kelvin Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury LLC, Judge Gardephe set deadlines and requirements for Hunter’s proposed amended complaint but did not decide whether amendment would be allowed.
Kelvin Hunter and the defendants, Debmar-Mercury LLC, Ira Bernstein, and Mort Marcus; the order governs the schedule and required contents of Hunter’s anticipated motion to amend.
What happened
In Kelvin Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury LLC, the court addressed the schedule and requirements for Kelvin Hunter’s anticipated amended motion seeking permission to file an amended complaint. The order did not decide that motion.
Hunter must file the amended motion by December 8, 2025, with the proposed amended complaint attached. The defendants’ opposition is due January 10, 2026, and Hunter’s reply, if any, is due January 24, 2026.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe required Hunter to explain why he missed the September 11, 2025 deadline in an earlier scheduling order and to show good cause, meaning a legally sufficient reason, for the delay. Hunter must also explain why the proposed new claims are supported by the alleged facts.
The detailed version
- Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01687
- Paul Gardephe
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
The court issued this scheduling order after an October 23, 2025 conference. Kelvin Hunter seeks leave, or permission, to file an amended complaint. The court’s earlier June 10, 2025 scheduling order directed Hunter to file any motion for leave to amend by September 11, 2025.
Requirements for the amended-motion filing
The court set these deadlines:
- Hunter’s amended motion for leave to amend is due December 8, 2025. - The proposed amended complaint must be attached to the motion as an exhibit. - The defendants’ opposition is due January 10, 2026. - Hunter’s reply, if any, is due January 24, 2026.
The proposed amended complaint must state the factual basis for each new cause of action. In the motion, Hunter must also explain how the alleged facts are sufficient to establish each new cause of action.
Missed scheduling deadline
Because Hunter did not meet the September 11 deadline, the court required him to explain why. The court stated that, under Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may amend a complaint after a scheduling-order deadline only by showing “good cause.” The court explained that good cause turns on the moving party’s diligence.
Disposition
Judge Paul G. Gardephe set filing requirements and briefing deadlines for Hunter’s anticipated amended motion. The order did not grant or deny leave to amend, and it did not decide whether any proposed new cause of action is legally sufficient. The court also reminded Hunter that the court’s Pro Se Office may provide assistance with court procedures.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.