Bah v. Apple Inc.

Background

Bah moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court explained that leave to amend is generally freely given, but may be denied for reasons including futility, bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice. An amendment is futile if it would not cure an earlier pleading problem or would not state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

The court had previously ruled that it had personal jurisdiction over Apple and Security Industry Specialists, Inc. for Bah’s defamation and malicious-prosecution claims arising from alleged thefts at Apple stores in New York. It had ruled that it lacked personal jurisdiction over those defendants for claims arising from alleged thefts in New Jersey and other states. The court also noted that New York’s long-arm statute contains a limitation for claims sounding in defamation.

Requested Amendments

Bah sought to add Detective John Reinhold, NYPD Officers John Doe 1 to 3, the NYPD, and the City of New York as defendants and to assert specified federal civil-rights claims against them. Apple and SIS did not oppose that proposed amendment. The court granted leave to add those defendants and claims.

Bah proposed adding Derek Forbes, an Apple employee, as an individual defendant. After being notified that the proposed pleading concerning Forbes was facially defective, Bah withdrew that proposed amendment. The court deemed it withdrawn.

Bah also sought to revive defamation and malicious-prosecution claims arising from the New Jersey incidents. He relied principally on a November 15, 2018 email from an SIS employee in New Jersey to Detective Reinhold. The court held that the email did not cure the earlier personal-jurisdiction deficiencies. Although the email was newly produced, the allegation it supported had already been assumed true when the court previously considered the motion to dismiss. The court stated that the email was published to a New York audience, intended to have a specific effect in New York, and related to defendants’ ongoing New York commercial activities; those facts supported jurisdiction for claims related to the New York incidents, not the New Jersey incidents.

The court found that the proposed amendments did not establish the required connection between the New Jersey defamation claims and defendants’ New York commercial activities, or between the New Jersey malicious-prosecution claims and those activities. It therefore found the amendments futile and denied leave to amend to revive those claims.

The court granted Bah’s request to add SIS employee John Woodruff as a defendant. It stated that the proposed allegations, including the November 15, 2018 email Woodruff sent to Detective Reinhold, appeared to provide sufficient grounds for potential defamation and malicious-prosecution claims arising from the New York incidents. The court stated that this grant was without prejudice to Woodruff’s right to seek dismissal of the claims.

The court denied leave to add SIS employee Steven Yhap because the proposed allegations against him concerned only the previously dismissed New Jersey claims, which the proposed amendments did not revive.

Finally, Bah sought to add negligence and intentional or negligent misrepresentation claims against Apple and SIS. The court found that Bah had not justified those amendments in his initial request, had not answered defendants’ objections in his reply, and had previously withdrawn substantively similar allegations. The court deemed those proposed claims abandoned and denied leave to amend to include them.

Disposition

The court ordered that Bah’s motion for leave to amend the Complaint was granted in part and denied in part. The opinion does not state the full subsequent procedural history of the case.