Chen v. Cai
- Philip Halpern
- 7:19-cv-05387
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chen v. Cai, Judge Halpern denied corporate defendants’ reconsideration motion, leaving the order requiring a shorter amended complaint in place.
The ruling directly affected the Corporate Defendants’ request for reconsideration and kept the requirement that Jingyu Chen file a simplified second amended complaint. It also imposed service and filing instructions on Chen and the Clerk.
What happened
In Chen v. Cai, the Corporate Defendants asked the court to reconsider its January 12, 2021 order. That order required Jingyu Chen to simplify and shorten her 76-page, nearly 500-paragraph amended complaint and file a second amended complaint.
The court explained that parties generally need the opposing party’s consent or the court’s permission to amend a pleading when amendment is not automatic. It concluded that requiring the second amended complaint was proper to help secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the case. The reconsideration motion was unopposed.
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied the motion for reconsideration. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the motion and required service of the order on Cheung, with proof of service to be filed by April 7, 2021, at 5:00 p.m.
The detailed version
- Chen v. Cai · No. 7:19-cv-05387
- Philip Halpern
- Apr. 6, 2021
Background
The Corporate Defendants—the Eastern US Buddha’s Study (Falun Dafa) Association, Inc.; Friends of Falun Gong, Inc.; International Falun Dafa Association, Inc.; New York Falun Dafa Association Corp.; NY Metropolitan Falun Dafa Association, Inc.; Falun Gong Club of Orange County, Inc.; Falun Dafa Information Center, Inc.; and Upstate New York Falun Dafa Association, Inc.—moved for reconsideration of the court’s January 12, 2021 order.
That earlier order directed Plaintiff Jingyu Chen to “streamline[] and simplif[y]” her 76-page amended complaint, which contained almost 500 paragraphs, and to file a second amended complaint. As a result of that order, the Corporate Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was denied without prejudice. Chen filed the second amended complaint on February 2, 2021. The reconsideration motion was unopposed.
Legal standard and analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), when a party cannot amend a pleading automatically, it may do so only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s permission. The rule states that courts should freely give permission when justice requires. The decision whether to allow an amendment is within the court’s discretion.
The court also relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, which requires the rules to be applied to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of each action. Applying those principles, the court concluded that directing Chen to file a second amended complaint was proper.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied the Corporate Defendants’ motion for reconsideration. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion pending at docket entry 87 and mail a copy of the order to Cheung at the address in the related notice of appearance. Chen was directed to mail Cheung a copy of the order and file proof of service on the docket by April 7, 2021, at 5:00 p.m.
The opinion also states that the Corporate Defendants sought permission to file a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and that the court scheduled a pre-motion conference for April 15, 2021. That anticipated motion was not decided in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.