Mandelay Kft. v. OX World Kft, et al.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:25-cv-01368
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Mandelay Kft. v. OX World Kft.: Judge Ramos granted defendants’ extension and deemed their December 4 reply timely.
Defendants QX World Kft. and White Dove Global Marketing Ltd. were allowed to file their reply brief late, and plaintiff Mandelay Kft. was affected because the brief was treated as timely. The order did not resolve the complaint or the motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Mandelay Kft. v. OX World Kft., defendants QX World Kft. and White Dove Global Marketing Ltd. asked for three more days to file their reply supporting a motion to dismiss. The request was made with Mandelay Kft.’s consent.
The deadline had been December 1, 2025, but defense counsel mistakenly recorded December 18 because of conflicting docket information. The requested extension would move the filing date to December 4, and the defendants asked the court to treat their attached reply as timely filed that day.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the extension and accepted the defendants’ December 4 reply brief as timely. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Mandelay Kft. v. OX World Kft, et al. · No. 1:25-cv-01368
- Edgardo Ramos
- Dec. 5, 2025
Background
Defendants QX World Kft. and White Dove Global Marketing Ltd. asked for a three-day, retroactive extension of the deadline to file their reply brief supporting their motion to dismiss Mandelay Kft.’s complaint. The request stated that Mandelay’s counsel consented.
The court had previously set the reply deadline for December 1, 2025. Defense counsel explained that it mistakenly recorded December 18 as the deadline because the court’s written order and a docket text entry contained different dates. Counsel discovered the mistake after the December 1 deadline had passed and submitted the reply brief on December 4.
Court’s ruling
The court granted the extension request. It accepted QX World Kft. and White Dove Global Marketing Ltd.’s reply brief, filed on December 4, 2025, as timely. The order addressed only the filing deadline; it did not rule on the defendants’ motion to dismiss or the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.