Gamboa v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-10605
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gamboa v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Judge Karas granted Plaintiffs’ request to accept their timely amended complaint.
Jackson Gamboa and Pedro Rocha were permitted to proceed with their amended complaint against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; the ruling did not decide the merits of their claims.
What happened
Gamboa v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. involves Jackson Gamboa and Pedro Rocha’s claims against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. under New York Labor Law. The plaintiffs said they had filed an identical complaint again because of a filing error, not filed a previous amended complaint.
After Regeneron indicated that it planned to seek dismissal, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. They asked the court to accept that filing, arguing that it was filed within the period when they could amend without permission. The court’s underlying opinion does not address whether the New York Labor Law claims have merit.
The filing states “Granted.” Judge Kenneth M. Karas therefore granted the plaintiffs’ request, although the text does not separately clarify whether he accepted the previously filed amended complaint or granted permission to file it.
The detailed version
- Gamboa v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · No. 7:22-cv-10605
- Kenneth Karas
- Mar. 20, 2023
Background
Jackson Gamboa and Pedro Rocha sued Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for alleged violations of the New York Labor Law. The opinion text is a March 20, 2023 letter from the plaintiffs’ attorney asking the court to accept an amended complaint that had already been filed.
The plaintiffs said they filed their original complaint on December 15, 2021. They later refiled an identical copy on December 16, 2022, which they said was done to correct a filing error and was not an amended complaint. Regeneron filed a request for a conference before seeking dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim.
Request to Amend
The plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on March 15, 2023. They argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) allowed them to amend once without the court’s permission within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b). They also argued that the amended complaint was timely under the judge’s individual rules.
The court clerk rejected the filing, stating that the pleading appeared to have been amended more than once and that court permission or the opposing party’s written consent was required. The plaintiffs asked the court either to accept the previously filed amended complaint or, if necessary, to give them permission to file it.
Ruling
The filing contains the notation “Granted.” Judge Kenneth M. Karas therefore granted the plaintiffs’ request. The text does not separately specify whether the court treated the amended complaint as properly filed as a matter of course or granted leave to file it.
The ruling did not decide the merits of the New York Labor Law claims, and it did not rule on Regeneron’s anticipated motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.