Hernandez Ramirez v. 35 Bakery Cafe Corp.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-00458
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hernandez Ramirez v. 35 Bakery Cafe Corp., Judge Torres allowed plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint and postponed the initial conference.
The plaintiffs, the defendants, and the schedule for the case were affected: the plaintiffs received permission to file a second amended complaint, two defendants were to be removed and one corporate defendant added, and the initial conference was postponed.
What happened
In Hernandez Ramirez v. 35 Bakery Cafe Corp., the plaintiffs asked to file a second amended complaint. They sought to remove 35 Bakery Café Corp. and James Nicozsis as defendants and add AA BC Bakery Café Corp. as a defendant. They also asked to postpone the initial conference because the defendants had not responded or appeared.
The plaintiffs argued that the amendment would identify the proper parties, would not unfairly harm the defendants, was made in good faith, and would not be futile. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Judge Analisa Torres granted the request. She ordered the plaintiffs to file the second amended complaint by June 1, 2021, postponed the initial conference to June 24, 2021, and ordered the parties to file a joint letter and proposed case-management plan by June 17, 2021.
The detailed version
- Hernandez Ramirez v. 35 Bakery Cafe Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-00458
- Analisa Torres
- May 21, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs, Alfredo Hernandez Ramirez and Lizabeth Huertas Ramirez, through their attorneys, requested permission to file a second amended complaint. They sought to remove 35 Bakery Café Corp. doing business as The Bread Factory Café and James Nicozsis as named defendants, and to add AA BC Bakery Café Corp. doing business as The Bread Factory Café.
The plaintiffs also requested that the initial pretrial conference, then scheduled for May 25, 2021, be postponed because the defendants had not responded to the first amended complaint or appeared in the case.
Legal standard
The letter cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which generally allows a court to permit amendments to pleadings, and Rule 21, which permits a court to add or remove parties on fair terms. The cited standard allows amendment unless there is undue delay, unfair prejudice, bad faith, or futility.
The plaintiffs argued that the defendants would not be unfairly prejudiced because two defendants would be removed and the defendants had not yet responded or appeared. They also stated that they were acting in good faith to name the proper parties based on information they had recently obtained, and that the amendment would not be futile.
Ruling
The court marked the request “GRANTED.” It ordered the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint by June 1, 2021. It adjourned the initial pretrial conference to June 24, 2021, at 10:20 a.m., and ordered the parties to file a joint letter and proposed case-management plan by June 17, 2021.
The opinion is a scheduling and pleading-amendment order. It does not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.