Rene v. 31 East 21 Express Inc.

Background

The opinion text is principally a letter from counsel for the “Nana Thai Defendants,” identified as Thanaphan Laonutwuttikul in both the corporate-defendant and individual-defendant capacities. The letter asked the court to reconsider its March 2, 2023 order and responded to plaintiff Claudio Rene Calle’s letter seeking leave to file a second amended collective-action and class-action complaint.

Defendants’ arguments

The defendants argued that the request to amend did not comply with the court’s individual rules or the Southern District of New York’s Local Civil Rules. They also argued that the request was untimely because it came nearly two years after the action began, more than a year after the amended-pleading deadline, and nearly a year after the defendants produced records and other materials.

The defendants further argued that the plaintiff had not shown “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(a) and had not established that the proposed amendment would not be futile under Rule 15(a). They asked the court to deny the letter request, require a pre-motion conference, and set a formal briefing schedule for an anticipated motion for leave to amend.

Ruling

The court’s operative ruling was brief: “Application denied.” The court added that the defendant could move or answer with respect to the amended complaint. The order does not expressly state whether the plaintiff’s request to amend was granted, and it does not resolve the parties’ underlying claims.

Classification and effect

This is a procedural order because it concerns reconsideration and amendment procedures rather than deciding the merits of the underlying claims. The immediate effect stated in the order is that the defendants may either file a motion or answer concerning the amended complaint.