Molesphini v. Giordano
Craig Molesphini and Elephant Entertainment, Inc. v. Anthony Giordano; Nue Resource Financial Corp.; Nue Resource Funding LLC; and Nue-Trition Weight Management, LLC
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-05427
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Molesphini v. Giordano, Judge Failla granted leave to amend, denied oral argument, and denied the motion to dismiss as moot.
The plaintiffs may file a Second Amended Complaint within two weeks. The defendants’ request for oral argument was denied, and their motion to dismiss was denied as moot; the court did not decide that motion’s failure-to-state-a-claim issue.
What happened
In Craig Molesphini and Elephant Entertainment, Inc. v. Anthony Giordano, Nue Resource Financial Corp., Nue Resource Funding LLC, and Nue-Trition Weight Management, LLC, the plaintiffs asked to file a Second Amended Complaint. The defendants opposed the request and argued that a stricter standard should apply.
The court held that the more flexible standard for amendments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 applied because the earlier scheduling order did not clearly require the stricter “good cause” standard under Rule 16. The court also noted that the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss had not yet been resolved.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend and ordered them to file their Second Amended Complaint within two weeks. The court denied the defendants’ request for oral argument and denied their motion to dismiss as moot.
The detailed version
- Molesphini v. Giordano · No. 1:20-cv-05427
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 18, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs filed their original complaint in July 2020 and their First Amended Complaint in August 2020. The case was later stayed pending resolution of a New Jersey state criminal prosecution against Anthony Giordano. The court lifted the stay in June 2025 and kept discovery deadlines stayed while the defendants’ motion to dismiss was pending.
The plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their First Amended Complaint. They argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 applied. Rule 15 generally directs courts to allow amendments when justice requires. The defendants argued that Rule 16 applied instead. Rule 16 requires a party to show “good cause” to modify a scheduling order after an amendment deadline has passed.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Rule 15 governed. The earlier scheduling order stated that amended pleadings could be filed only with the court’s permission and that a motion to amend had to be filed within 30 days. It did not clearly state that a motion filed after that deadline would be subject to Rule 16’s good-cause standard. Relying on Second Circuit precedent, the court determined that the scheduling-order language was not sufficiently clear to trigger Rule 16.
Applying Rule 15, the court agreed that the plaintiffs met the liberal standard for amendment. The opinion does not describe the specific proposed changes to the complaint.
Rulings
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their First Amended Complaint. It ordered the plaintiffs to file their Second Amended Complaint within two weeks of the order’s date.
The court denied the defendants’ request for oral argument. Because the plaintiffs were permitted to amend their complaint, the court denied as moot the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at docket entries 67, 73, and 81.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.
Related cases
- CROSS FIRE & SECURITY CO., INC. and NORTH AMERICAN FIRE HOLDINGS, LLC, doing…Jul 2026
- Dennis Batista Nunez v. Kenneth W. Rantz, Jr., doing business as K W Rantz…Oct 2025
- Acostav. Steven M
- Fort Lee Office LLC and Meyer Chetrit v. Computershare Trust Company, National…Sep 2025
- O'ReillySep 2025
- Balmuccinov. Starbucks Corporation