Tucker v. Ulta Beauty, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-09845
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tucker v. Ulta Beauty, Judge Failla accepted Tucker’s amended complaint and denied Ulta’s motion to strike, preserving further briefing on dismissal.
Henry Tucker and the other people he sought to represent were allowed to proceed with the First Amended Complaint, while Ulta Beauty’s motion to strike was denied and its motion to dismiss remained pending.
What happened
In Tucker v. Ulta Beauty, Inc., the plaintiff filed an amended complaint after the deadline discussed at a conference and after Ulta Beauty had filed its motion to dismiss. The court found that the filing was late under the conference schedule, but also recognized Tucker’s right to amend once within 21 days after service of the dismissal motion.
The court accepted the First Amended Complaint despite the missed deadline. It also denied Ulta Beauty’s motion to strike the amended complaint. The court directed Ulta Beauty either to respond to the amended complaint or to supplement its pending motion to dismiss, and set deadlines for further briefing.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued the order on March 27, 2020. The order addressed amendment and briefing procedures; it did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Tucker v. Ulta Beauty, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09845
- Katherine Failla
- Mar. 27, 2020
Background
The court held a pre-motion conference on January 31, 2020, concerning Ulta Beauty’s anticipated motion to dismiss. During that conference, Tucker’s counsel suggested February 14, 2020, as the deadline for filing an amended complaint. The court set that deadline, while allowing Tucker until April 1, 2020, to oppose the anticipated motion to dismiss.
Tucker filed a First Amended Complaint on March 19, 2020, after Ulta Beauty had filed its opening brief and more than a month after the February 14 deadline. Tucker’s counsel asserted that he had believed the amendment deadline was April 1, but the court rejected that interpretation of the conference transcript.
Court’s Analysis
The court nevertheless concluded that Tucker had a separate right to amend once within 21 days after service of Ulta Beauty’s Rule 12(b) motion, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). The court also relied on the Second Circuit’s stated preference for resolving disputes on their merits and its holding that attending a pre-motion conference does not eliminate the right to amend before the plaintiff has seen the motion to dismiss.
Disposition
The court accepted the First Amended Complaint and denied Ulta Beauty’s motion to strike. Ulta Beauty was given until April 17, 2020, either to file a responsive pleading if it withdrew its motion to dismiss or to file a letter supplementing that motion in light of the amended complaint. If Ulta Beauty supplemented its motion, Tucker’s opposition was due May 15, 2020, and any reply was due May 29, 2020. The order did not rule on whether the claims stated a valid legal claim or otherwise decide the merits of the dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.