Pecou v. Bessemer Trust Company
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-01019
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Pecou v. Bessemer Trust Company, Judge Vyskocil granted leave to amend and denied defendants’ dismissal motion without prejudice as moot.
Jubril Pecou, the additional plaintiff he sought to add, Bessemer Trust Company, and the Profit Sharing Plan Committee of Bessemer Trust Company. The case proceeds with an amended complaint, subject to any new response or motion by the defendants.
What happened
In Pecou v. Bessemer Trust Company, Jubril Pecou asked to add one additional plaintiff to the complaint. He said the amendment would address arguments about a release in his separation agreement. The defendants opposed the request.
The court found no improper delay, bad faith, or unfair harm to the defendants because the case was still at an early stage. It also chose not to decide whether the proposed amendment would be legally futile, leaving those issues for a possible later motion to dismiss.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted Pecou’s request for permission to amend and denied the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot. Pecou had to file the amended complaint by August 30, 2022, and the defendants had 14 days after filing to respond.
The detailed version
- Pecou v. Bessemer Trust Company · No. 1:22-cv-01019
- Vyskocil
- Aug. 24, 2022
Background
Jubril Pecou sued Bessemer Trust Company and the Profit Sharing Plan Committee of Bessemer Trust Company, individually, as a representative of a proposed class, and on behalf of the Bessemer Trust Company 401(k) and Profit Sharing Plan. The defendants obtained permission to file a motion to dismiss. The court had directed Pecou to say whether he wanted to amend his complaint in response to the defendants’ anticipated arguments. Pecou initially said he did not intend to amend.
While the defendants’ motion to dismiss was being briefed, Pecou later sought permission to amend. The pending motion asked to add one additional plaintiff. Pecou represented that adding this plaintiff would moot arguments concerning the release in his separation agreement. The defendants opposed the motion.
Legal standard and analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) generally provides that courts should freely allow amendments when justice requires. Leave to amend may be denied for reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, unfair prejudice to the opposing party, or futility, meaning that the proposed amendment would not produce a legally viable pleading.
The court found no undue delay because Pecou’s request was made in response to the motion to dismiss. It also found no undue prejudice because the case was at an early stage: no defendant had answered, no scheduling conference had occurred, and no discovery deadlines had been set. The court found no evidence of bad faith.
The court declined to decide whether the proposed amendment would be futile, explaining that the defendants’ arguments were better addressed through a motion to dismiss directed at the amended complaint. The court also stated that granting leave to amend and making the pending dismissal motion moot was the preferred course in these circumstances.
Disposition
The court granted Pecou’s cross-motion for leave to amend. It denied without prejudice as moot the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Pecou was ordered to file the amended complaint by August 30, 2022. The defendants were required to respond within 14 days after it was filed. If they moved to dismiss the amended complaint, they could proceed directly to motion practice without submitting another pre-motion letter. The clerk was asked to terminate docket entries 23 and 34.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.