Hou Liu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:17-cv-07371
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hou Liu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Judge Kaplan granted plaintiffs’ request for more time to seek reconsideration or amend their complaint.
Lead Plaintiffs Hou Liu and Amy Fu, the defendants, and the parties in the pending case were affected by the granted extension request.
What happened
In Hou Liu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lead Plaintiffs Hou Liu and Amy Fu asked for 14 more days to seek reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing their amended class-action complaint or, alternatively, to seek permission to file another amended complaint.
The plaintiffs cited the COVID-19 pandemic, health issues affecting one attorney’s team and family, and New York City business shutdowns. The defendants did not agree, arguing that the plaintiffs had already had enough time to amend the complaint.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted the motion for an extension but warned that, because the plaintiffs had already had the court’s decision for more than a month, they should not expect another extension to be granted.
The detailed version
- Hou Liu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-07371
- Lewis Kaplan
- Apr. 21, 2020
Background
Lead Plaintiffs Hou Liu and Amy Fu filed a letter motion seeking an extension of time to submit a motion asking the court to reconsider its order dismissing their amended class-action complaint. Alternatively, they sought permission to file another amended complaint. The plaintiffs relied on Local Rule 6.3 and Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The letter stated that the court had dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety on March 26, 2020, and that the Clerk entered judgment the next day. The plaintiffs said their reconsideration motion was due April 24, 2020, and asked for a 14-day extension to May 8, 2020. They cited the COVID-19 pandemic, health issues involving one attorney and the attorney’s family, and New York City business shutdowns.
Positions of the Parties
The plaintiffs described the request as their first request for an extension. They said they had conferred with the defendants, but the defendants did not consent. The defendants stated that they were sensitive to the pandemic but wanted the case concluded and believed the plaintiffs had already had ample time to prepare another amended complaint.
Ruling
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted the motion. The court added that, because the plaintiffs had already had its decision for well over a month, they should assume that any further extension would not likely be granted. The opinion does not separately state whether the court granted permission to file an amended complaint; it grants the extension motion described in the plaintiffs’ letter.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.