Multi Access Limited v. Guangzhou Baiyunshan Pharmaceutical Holdings Co., Ltd.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-07397
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Multi Access Limited v. Guangzhou Baiyunshan, Judge Liman granted amendment and denied pending motions as moot without deciding jurisdiction.
Multi Access Limited may file an amended complaint adding jurisdictional allegations and eight new defendants. Guangzhou Baiyunshan Pharmaceutical Holdings Co., Ltd. and WLJ (America) Co., Inc. must respond after service of the amended complaint, and discovery is stayed for all parties.
What happened
In Multi Access Limited v. Guangzhou Baiyunshan Pharmaceutical Holdings Co., Ltd. and WLJ (America) Co., Inc., Multi Access Limited asked to amend its complaint to add jurisdictional allegations and eight additional defendants. The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing it would be futile, cause delay, and lead to renewed jurisdiction and indispensable-party disputes.
The court granted Multi Access Limited permission to file the amended complaint by December 3, 2021. Because the complaint would change, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss and Multi Access Limited’s motion to strike as moot. The court did not decide whether it had jurisdiction over Guangzhou Baiyunshan or whether an indispensable party was missing.
Judge Lewis J. Liman also stayed discovery, canceled the January 19, 2022 status conference, and extended the defendants’ deadline to respond until 21 days after service of the amended complaint on one of the new defendants, unless the court set a later date.
The detailed version
- Multi Access Limited v. Guangzhou Baiyunshan Pharmaceutical Holdings Co., Ltd. · No. 1:20-cv-07397
- Lewis Liman
- Nov. 30, 2021
Background
The court had three motions before it:
- The defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(7), principally arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over Guangzhou Baiyunshan Pharmaceutical Holdings Co. and that the case therefore lacked an indispensable party.
- Multi Access Limited’s motion under Rule 15 for permission to file an amended complaint adding jurisdictional allegations and eight new defendants.
- Multi Access Limited’s motion to strike the declaration the defendants submitted with their motion to dismiss.
The court had previously ordered jurisdictional discovery, which was complete. Other fact discovery had not begun.
Leave to Amend
The court granted Multi Access Limited leave to amend. The request came before non-jurisdictional fact discovery began, and the court found no showing of bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice to the defendants. The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that amendment would unfairly require them to rebrief the motion to dismiss or would cause prejudice because seven of the proposed new defendants were Chinese companies that would need to be served under Hague Convention procedures.
The court also declined to decide whether the proposed amendment would be futile. The defendants’ futility argument depended on the success of their pending jurisdictional motion, which the court had not yet considered. The court stated that the jurisdictional and claim-sufficiency issues would be better addressed after it received a pleading containing all of Multi Access Limited’s jurisdictional facts and the facts it believed supported its claims.
Rulings and Case Management
The court ordered Multi Access Limited to file its amended complaint by December 3, 2021. Under the court’s individual practices, the pending motion to dismiss would be denied as moot after amendment, leaving the defendants the option to answer, file a new motion to dismiss with supporting briefing, or state that they would rely on their original motion and memorandum. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss at Docket No. 27 as moot and denied the motion to strike at Docket No. 52 as moot.
The court stayed discovery, canceled the January 19, 2022 status conference, and extended the defendants’ deadline to move or answer until 21 days after a certificate of service showed that one of the new defendants had been served, unless the court later set another date. The clerk was directed to close Docket Nos. 27, 50, and 52. The order did not decide the defendants’ jurisdictional or indispensable-party arguments.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.