Reveron v. Zumiez, Inc.
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:23-cv-10114
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Reveron v. Zumiez, Judge Gorenstein granted Reveron’s request to amend her complaint and set deadlines for filing and service.
Stephanie M. Reveron, New Balance, Zumiez, Inc., the other defendants, and proposed new defendant Pause Café, Inc.
What happened
In Reveron v. Zumiez, Inc., Stephanie M. Reveron, who was representing herself, asked to file a second amended complaint. The proposed complaint added allegations against New Balance and added Pause Café, Inc. as a defendant.
New Balance argued that Reveron had waited too long, acted improperly, and would unfairly burden the defendants. The court found that the delay was understandable and not lengthy, discovery had not begun, and New Balance had not shown sufficient prejudice. The court also found that New Balance’s argument that the amendment would be legally futile was too cursory to justify denying the request.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted the motion to amend. He ordered Reveron to file the proposed second amended complaint by April 9, 2024, serve Pause Café by April 23, 2024, and file a letter about service by April 30, 2024. The deadlines for defendants to answer or file motions remain postponed until the court sets them.
The detailed version
- Reveron v. Zumiez, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-10114
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Apr. 3, 2024
Background
Stephanie M. Reveron requested permission to amend her complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The proposed second amended complaint added allegations against New Balance and added Pause Café, Inc. as a defendant. Reveron was proceeding without a lawyer.
Arguments and Analysis
Rule 15(a)(2) generally directs courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. The court may deny leave to amend for reasons such as unreasonable delay, improper motive, repeated failure to correct deficiencies, unfair prejudice, or legal futility—that is, when the proposed amendment could not support a viable claim.
New Balance argued that Reveron had delayed making the new allegations and had acted in bad faith. The court found the delay understandable in light of Reveron’s lack of a lawyer and noted that the delay was not lengthy and discovery had not begun. The court also explained that delay alone was not enough to deny amendment.
New Balance further argued that the amendment would prejudice it because the defendants would have to file their motion to dismiss again. The court rejected that argument, finding that New Balance had not shown that the amendment would require significant additional discovery resources or significantly delay the case. The court also found that New Balance’s legal-futility argument was made only in a cursory manner.
Ruling and Case Schedule
The court granted the motion to amend. The proposed second amended complaint had to be filed by April 9, 2024. Reveron was ordered to immediately serve Pause Café, Inc. and file proof of service by April 23, 2024.
The deadlines for all defendants to answer or file motions concerning the complaint remained postponed without a set date. After proof of service for all defendants was filed, Reveron was required to notify the court. The court would then set a deadline for answers or motions to dismiss. The deadline for Reveron’s service-related letter was extended to April 30, 2024; if service had not been completed by then, she had to explain why there was good reason to extend the service deadline.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.