Friedman v. Bloomberg LP et al

Filing 261

ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached order, Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer and Counterclaim (ECF No. 250 ) is hereby DENIED. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Alvin W. Thompson on 04/04/2022. (Ghinaglia Socorro, F.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
-------------------------------- x
DAN FRIEDMAN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
BLOOMBERG, L.P., CHRISTOPHER
:
DOLMETSCH, ERIK LARSEN, MICHAEL :
HYTHA, and ANDREW DUNN,
:
:
Defendants.
:
-------------------------------- x

Civil No. 3:15-cv-443 (AWT)

ORDER RE MOTION TO AMEND
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion for
Leave to File Amended Answer and Counterclaim (ECF No. 250) is
hereby DENIED.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), a party may amend its pleading
once as a matter of course. “In all other cases, a party may
amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written
consent or with the court’s leave,” and “[t]he court should
freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). Nevertheless, “motions to amend should generally be
denied in instances of futility, undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, or undue prejudice to the nonmoving party.” Burch v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., 551 F.3d
122, 126 (2d Cir. 2008).

-1-

The defendants’ amendment would be futile because New
York’s anti-SLAPP statute conflicts with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. As courts in the Southern District of New York
have explained, “the ‘substantial basis’ standard articulated in
New York’s anti-SLAPP law” is inapplicable in federal court
because it “conflicts with the standards under Federal Rules of
civil Procedure 12 and 56” and impermissibly “imposes a
different, and higher, burden on the plaintiff at the pleading
stage than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Nat’l Acad. of
Television Arts & Scis., Inc. v. Multimedia Sys. Design, Inc.,
551 F.Supp.3d 408, 431-32 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). See also Carroll v.
Trump, ___ F.Supp.3d ____, 2022 WL 748128, at *4-7 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 11, 2022); Kessner v. Buhl, 2022 WL 718840, at *16-18
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2022). The court agrees with their analysis.
It is so ordered.
Dated this 4th day of April 2022, at Hartford, Connecticut.

/s/AWT
Alvin W. Thompson
United States District Judge

-2-