Hedgeye Risk Management, LLC v. Terman
- Andrew Carter
- 1:22-cv-01113
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hedgeye v. Terman, Judge Carter denied consolidation, granted amendment and sealing, denied the stay as moot, and denied dismissal motions without prejudice.
Hedgeye Risk Management, LLC, Darius Dale, Nadine Terman, Solstein Capital, LLC, and the defendants whose motions were affected by the amendment.
What happened
Hedgeye Risk Management, LLC asked the court to combine two related cases, amend its complaint to add Nadine Terman and Solstein Capital, LLC as defendants, and pause the proceedings. The cases involved substantially similar facts, legal issues, and discovery.
The court found that adding the Terman defendants to the Dale case would be more efficient and would not significantly delay the case or require substantial additional resources. The defendants did not show that the harm from amendment outweighed those efficiency benefits.
Judge Carter denied consolidation, granted Hedgeye permission to amend its complaint, and denied the motion to stay as moot. He also granted the Dale Defendants’ motion to seal and denied the Terman and Dale Defendants’ motions to dismiss without prejudice, allowing them to refile after Hedgeye files its amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Hedgeye Risk Management, LLC v. Terman · No. 1:22-cv-01113
- Andrew Carter
- July 15, 2022
Background
Hedgeye Risk Management, LLC moved to amend or consolidate case number 21-cv-03687, called the Dale Action, and case number 22-cv-01113, called the Terman Action. Hedgeye also moved to stay the proceedings. The caption identifies Darius Dale as a defendant in the Dale Action and Nadine Terman and Solstein Capital, LLC as defendants in the Terman Action.
Amendment
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), courts generally allow a party to amend a complaint when justice requires. The court considered whether the amendment would unfairly prejudice the defendants, including by requiring significant additional discovery or trial preparation, significantly delaying resolution, or preventing a timely action elsewhere.
The court found that the defendants had not shown that prejudice outweighed the efficiency benefits of amendment. It stated that the two actions involved substantially similar facts, legal issues, and discovery, which could be handled more efficiently together. The court also found that the three-month period between filing a complaint and requesting consolidation or amendment did not constitute significant delay.
Rulings
The court denied the motion to consolidate. It granted Hedgeye leave to file an amended complaint in the Dale Action naming Nadine Terman and Solstein Capital, LLC as defendants. It denied the motion to stay as moot.
The court granted the Dale Defendants’ motion to seal. In light of the amendment, it denied the Terman and Dale Defendants’ motions to dismiss without prejudice, with leave to refile after the amended complaint was filed. Hedgeye was ordered to file the amended complaint by July 27, 2022; defendants’ opening brief was due August 24, 2022; and Hedgeye’s reply was due September 7, 2022. The clerk was directed to terminate specified motions in both cases.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.