Del Rosario v. Sazerac Company, Inc.
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-01060
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Del Rosario v. Sazerac, Judge Subramanian granted plaintiff’s motion to extend time to join parties and file an amended complaint.
Christina Del Rosario, the proposed plaintiffs, and Sazerac Company, Inc.
What happened
In Del Rosario v. Sazerac Company, Inc., Christina Del Rosario asked for more time to join parties and to replace her with proposed plaintiffs in an amended complaint because health issues prevented her from continuing the case.
The court found good cause because plaintiff’s counsel acted within a week after learning of the health issues. It also found no undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to fix a problem, futility, or unfair harm to Sazerac Company, Inc.; the proposed plaintiffs would assert the same right to relief based on the same facts and legal theories.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the motion and allowed plaintiff to file the proposed amended complaint by February 5, 2024.
The detailed version
- Del Rosario v. Sazerac Company, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01060
- Subramanian
- Feb. 2, 2024
Background
Christina Del Rosario, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, moved for an extension of time to join parties. The proposed amended complaint would substitute proposed plaintiffs because Del Rosario was suffering from health issues that prevented her from proceeding with the case.
Court’s Reasoning
The court’s scheduling order could be changed only upon a showing of “good cause,” meaning a sufficient reason for modifying the deadline. The court found that standard satisfied because plaintiff’s counsel moved for joinder within a week of learning about Del Rosario’s health issues. The court found no reason to doubt the legitimacy of those issues and did not hold counsel responsible for failing to predict them.
The court also found that the factors under Rule 15 were satisfied. Rule 15 governs amendments to pleadings, such as a complaint. The court found no evidence of undue delay or bad faith, no repeated failure to correct a deficiency, and no indication that the amendment would be legally futile. It also found no undue prejudice to Sazerac Company, Inc. because the proposed plaintiffs would assert the same right to relief based on the same facts and legal theories. The limited changes would not require significant changes to deposition preparation, discovery, or litigation strategy.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian granted plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to join parties and granted plaintiff leave to file the proposed amended complaint. The court directed plaintiff to file it by February 5, 2024. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Effect
The ruling permits the proposed substitution or addition of plaintiffs to proceed under the amended complaint and allows the case to continue on the stated facts and legal theories. It does not resolve whether those claims will succeed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.