Hess v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:21-cv-04099
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hess v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Judge Lehrburger set deadlines for a proposed amended complaint and related dismissal motion.
The plaintiffs and Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., through the deadlines and briefing procedures governing the proposed third amended complaint and the anticipated motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Hess v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., the plaintiffs planned to ask for permission to file a third amended complaint. The defendant said it would oppose the amendment on procedural grounds and because it believed the proposed claims would be legally insufficient.
The plaintiffs asked the court to avoid having the same issues considered separately by the magistrate judge and district judge. They proposed that the defendant combine its arguments about the proposed amendment with its motion to dismiss the existing complaint.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger ordered a combined schedule: the plaintiffs’ amendment motion was due June 24, 2022; the defendant’s dismissal motion and opposition were due July 22; the plaintiffs’ combined opposition was due August 12; and the defendant’s reply was due August 26. The order did not decide whether the amendment would be allowed or whether the claims should be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Hess v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-04099
- Robert Lehrburger
- June 13, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs advised the court that they intended to seek permission to file a third amended complaint. The defendant stated that it would oppose the amendment on procedural grounds and on the ground of futility. In this context, futility means that the proposed amended claims could not survive a motion to dismiss under the applicable pleading standard.
The plaintiffs’ counsel told the court that the same legal issues might arise in both the motion to amend and the defendant’s anticipated motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Counsel expressed concern that the parties could be required to brief identical issues before both the magistrate judge and the district judge.
Order
For efficiency, the court directed the parties to use a consolidated briefing schedule. The plaintiffs were required to file the motion to amend by June 24, 2022. By July 22, 2022, the defendant was required to move to dismiss the claims in the second amended complaint and file one brief supporting that motion and opposing the motion to amend. The plaintiffs’ consolidated opposition and further support for amendment was due August 12, 2022. The defendant’s reply, if any, was due August 26, 2022.
This was a scheduling and case-management order. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger did not grant or deny the motion to amend, decide whether the proposed amendment was futile, or decide the anticipated motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.