Norris v. Goldner
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-05491
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Norris v. Goldner, Judge Netburn denied defendants’ late motion to add counterclaims because they lacked good cause and the delay would prejudice Norris.
The ruling affected Marc Goldner, Golden Bell Entertainment, LLC, and Golden Bell Studios, LLC by preventing them from adding the proposed counterclaims through this amendment motion, and affected Alexander Norris by avoiding the proposed late-added claims and possible reopening of discovery in this action.
What happened
Norris v. Goldner concerns defendants’ request to add three counterclaims against Alexander Norris: breach of contract, interference with a possible business relationship, and copyright infringement. The case involved an agreement concerning production and distribution of a Webcomic Name-themed card game.
The deadline to amend the pleadings was January 2, 2020, but defendants did not seek permission to add their counterclaims until 2022. They argued that settlement efforts, the COVID-19 pandemic, and a period without lawyers explained the delay. They also claimed they learned about one alleged contract violation in 2021.
Judge Sarah Netburn denied the motion. She found that defendants had not shown the required diligence or good cause for missing the deadline, and that adding the claims after discovery and near the parties’ summary-judgment motions would prejudice Norris and delay the case.
The detailed version
- Norris v. Goldner · No. 1:19-cv-05491
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 7, 2023
Background
Alexander Norris created the webcomic and brand “Webcomic Name,” whose main character, “Blob,” uses the phrase “Oh No.” Norris and game creator Jason Wiseman planned a Webcomic Name-themed table card game. Defendants Marc Goldner, Golden Bell Entertainment, LLC, and Golden Bell Studios, LLC later agreed to publish and distribute the game.
The parties executed an agreement on August 10, 2017. Under that agreement, Norris assigned defendants certain rights relating to the game and was to receive a percentage of sales of the game and related products. The agreement also gave defendants a 365-day option on Norris’s next game-length, book-length, and manuscript-length works.
Defendants alleged that Norris failed to provide final game files, published a book without giving them an opportunity to exercise their option, refused to share access to his social-media accounts, and made disparaging public comments. They sought to add counterclaims for breach of contract, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and copyright infringement.
Procedural History and Motion
Norris filed the action on June 12, 2019. A December 2, 2019 scheduling order required motions to amend the pleadings to be filed within 30 days. Because January 1, 2020 was a court holiday, the amendment deadline was January 2, 2020.
Defendants’ original answer and answer to Norris’s supplemental complaint did not include counterclaims. Defendants later sought leave to amend their answer. The opinion states that their motion was filed on October 6, 2022, more than two and a half years after the amendment deadline.
Because the scheduling-order deadline had passed, the court applied the requirement that defendants show “good cause” to modify the schedule. Good cause primarily depends on whether the moving party acted diligently—meaning, in this context, whether it made reasonable efforts to meet the deadline.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that defendants had not shown diligence. Defendants relied on settlement efforts, the COVID-19 pandemic, and their period of proceeding without lawyers after counsel withdrew in October 2021.
The court rejected those explanations. Defendants acknowledged that they deliberately withheld counterclaims while pursuing settlement, which the court viewed as a strategic choice rather than a reason they could not meet the deadline. The court also found that defendants did not explain how the pandemic prevented amendment by January 2, 2020, several weeks before lockdowns began in the United States. Their period without counsel began more than 21 months after the amendment deadline and therefore did not explain the late request.
Defendants also claimed that they did not learn about Norris’s alleged violation of the book-option provision until shortly before an October 2021 settlement conference. Norris submitted a March 29, 2019 letter from defendants’ then-counsel that described the same proposed claims and referred to Norris’s efforts to publish the book. The court found that this letter directly contradicted defendants’ account. It described the apparent misrepresentation in defendants’ briefing as concerning and concluded that the proposed amendments were based on information defendants knew before the deadline.
The court also found prejudice to Norris. Discovery had ended on August 24, 2022, and the parties had filed or were preparing cross-motions for summary judgment. Adding the counterclaims at that stage could require reopening discovery and delay resolution of the dispute. The court declined to further delay the case based only on the possibility that defendants might bring a separate lawsuit.
Disposition
Judge Sarah Netburn denied defendants’ motion to amend their answer and add counterclaims. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 111. The ruling addressed whether defendants could add the counterclaims at that late stage; it did not decide whether the proposed breach-of-contract, tortious-interference, or copyright claims were legally or factually valid.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.