Mejia v. Peach Skin Sheets L.L.C.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-05372
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mejia v. Peach Skin Sheets, Judge Liman denied requests to amend the complaint and pause summary-judgment briefing, allowing renewal under specified procedures.
Richard Mejia and Peach Skin Sheets LLC. Mejia’s request to amend was denied without prejudice to renewal by formal motion, and his request to pause summary-judgment briefing was denied without prejudice to a proper Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) showing.
What happened
In Mejia v. Peach Skin Sheets LLC, Richard Mejia asked the court for permission to file an amended complaint and to pause briefing on Peach Skin Sheets LLC’s summary-judgment motion. He said discovery was incomplete and that Peach Skin Sheets had not provided most requested information about its website and compliance with accessibility standards.
The court denied the request to amend the complaint, but said Mejia could renew it by making a formal motion. The court also denied the request to pause summary-judgment briefing, while allowing Mejia to make a proper showing that deciding summary judgment would be premature through a statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) filed with his opposition.
Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the order on March 21, 2023. The order did not decide the underlying claims or the summary-judgment motion itself.
The detailed version
- Mejia v. Peach Skin Sheets L.L.C. · No. 1:22-cv-05372
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 21, 2023
Background
Richard Mejia, through counsel, filed a letter-motion seeking two forms of relief. First, he asked to pause briefing on Peach Skin Sheets LLC’s motion for summary judgment until fact discovery ended on May 22, 2023. He argued that discovery was still outstanding, including information about the development and design of the defendant’s website, communications concerning equal accessibility, and testimony from a designated company witness about efforts to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1.
Mejia stated that the defendant had not provided discovery responses, except for the name of one unidentified person who might have discoverable information. He also requested three additional days to file an opposition if the court did not pause the summary-judgment briefing.
Second, Mejia requested permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to file an amended complaint. He argued that this would be his first amended complaint, that the amendment would not be futile, and that there was no bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice to Peach Skin Sheets LLC. He also referred to a Second Circuit decision issued after the original complaint was filed.
Court’s Rulings
The court denied the motion for leave to amend the complaint without prejudice to renewal by formal motion. This means the order did not bar Mejia from renewing the request, but the court did not grant permission to amend through the letter-motion.
The court also denied the motion to stay summary-judgment briefing without prejudice to Mejia making a proper showing that consideration of summary judgment would be premature. The court specified that the showing should be made through a statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), filed in opposition to the summary-judgment motion.
The order did not decide whether summary judgment should be granted, whether the website was accessible, or the merits of Mejia’s underlying claims. It ruled only on the requested amendment and briefing-related relief.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.