Eason v. Revlon Consumer Products LLC
Angela Eason, et al. v. Revlon Consumer Products LLC; Maria Khangi, et al. v. Revlon Consumer Products LLC
- Vargas
- 1:26-cv-05014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Eason v. Revlon, Judge Vargas consolidated the cases for pretrial purposes, stayed discovery, and set amendment and motion deadlines.
The plaintiffs in the Eason and Khangi actions and Revlon Consumer Products LLC are affected by the consolidation, pleading deadlines, motion-to-dismiss schedule, discovery stay, and requirement that future filings be made in the Eason docket.
What happened
Angela Eason v. Revlon Consumer Products LLC and Maria Khangi v. Revlon Consumer Products LLC are two cases involving similar claims against the same defendant. The parties asked the court to combine them for pretrial proceedings.
The court ordered the cases consolidated for pretrial purposes under Rule 42(a), with Eason as the lead case. It required the plaintiffs to file one consolidated complaint without adding new substantive allegations, claims, or parties, and it set deadlines for any amendment and for responding to Revlon’s planned motion to dismiss.
The court also granted the parties’ joint request to pause discovery while the motion to dismiss is resolved. Judge Jeannette A. Vargas directed the Clerk to close the Khangi docket for administrative purposes and required future filings in the Eason docket; the court will decide later whether to consolidate the cases for trial.
The detailed version
- Eason v. Revlon Consumer Products LLC · No. 1:26-cv-05014
- Vargas
- Aug. 19, 2026
Background
The two cases involve similar claims against Revlon Consumer Products LLC. On July 20, 2026, counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for Revlon submitted a letter stating that consolidation was appropriate, at least for pretrial purposes.
Consolidation and pleadings
The court consolidated the cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) for pretrial purposes. It stated that it would decide later whether consolidation for trial was warranted. The Eason Action, No. 26-CV-05014, became the lead case.
The plaintiffs were ordered to file one amended consolidated complaint by July 31, 2026. That complaint could not add substantive allegations, claims, or parties that were not already alleged in either related action. The court stated that, despite this amendment, the plaintiffs could amend once more as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1).
Motion-to-dismiss schedule
Revlon’s motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was due September 4, 2026. If the plaintiffs amended the consolidated complaint, the amended complaint was due October 5, 2026, with a redline showing changes from the earlier filing. The court warned that there likely would not be another opportunity to amend to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss.
If the plaintiffs amended, Revlon had three weeks after the amended complaint was filed to answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or state that it relied on its earlier motion. If Revlon answered or filed a new motion, the court would deny the earlier motion as moot. The order also set deadlines for opposition and reply briefs.
If the plaintiffs did not amend, their opposition to the motion to dismiss was due October 5, 2026, and Revlon’s reply was due October 26, 2026.
Discovery and docket administration
The court found good cause to grant the parties’ joint request to stay, or pause, discovery while Revlon’s motion to dismiss was pending. The Clerk was directed to consolidate the cases under the Eason docket and close the Khangi docket. Future filings were required to be made in the Eason case. The order did not decide whether the claims were legally sufficient or whether either side would prevail.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.