Hangzhou Kailai Neckwear Apparel Co. Ltd. v. NCP Direct Sourcing, Inc. et al

Filing 26

ORDER. The Defendants' request is GRANTED and they are hereby granted leave to file to the docket what is attached as Exhibit B to their letter motion, "Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims." (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/8/2015) (rjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Hangzhou Kailai Neckwear Apparel Co.,
Plaintiff,
15-cv-1441 (AJN)

-vRDER
NCP Direct Sourcing, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.

USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:

DATE Fn£n;.s£e ··n s201_ .
.. ~.
..;=di

On August 12, 2015, Defendants first moved to amend their answer and counterclaim,
pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), in order to correct certain factual representations in the pleading. See
Dkt. No. 21. Specifically, the Defendants wish to downwardly revise the damages estimate
contained in their counterclaim. Id. Plaintiff opposes this request for three reasons. First, it
contends that Defendants improperly filed their request as a letter motion, rather than as a formal
motion. Second, it insists that Defendants' request is untimely. Finally, it argues that it will be
prejudiced by the request. See Dkt. No. 24.
The Court rejects Plaintiffs arguments. Plaintiff notes that the Southern District of New
York ECF Instructions provide that letter motions may be filed for, inter alia, motions to adjourn
conferences, motions for conferences, and motions for extensions of time, but not for a motion
for leave to amend a pleading. Id. Nevertheless, the Rule expressly contemplates that the
District Court may allow the use ofletter motions at its discretion. See Local Rule 7.1 (a). In this
instance, the Court will accept the ECF-filed letter motion as a motion to amend.

As to Plaintiffs second argument, the Case Management Plan adopted by the Court set
August 13, 2015 as the deadline for motions to amend pleadings. See Dkt. No. 20. Defendants'
motion was filed on August 12, 2015 and is therefore timely. See Dkt. No. 21.
Finally, Plaintiffs claim of prejudice does not outweigh Rule 15(a)(2)'s liberal standard
for leave to amend pleadings, which requires the Court to "freely give leave when justice so
requires." In this case, Defendants propose a limited factual amendment to their counterclaim,
downwardly revising their damages estimate. They do not propose significantly modifying their
claims or affirmative defenses, nor do they propose adding additional parties. Although Plaintiff
claims that it will be prejudiced by a need to "expend further time and resources in replying to
Defendants' amended pleading," see Dkt. No. 24, it does not explain why a limited, factual
amendment to Defendants' counterclaim will require the expenditure of time and resources.
Accordingly, the Defendants' request is GRANTED and they are hereby granted leave to
file to the docket what is attached as Exhibit B to their letter motion, "Amended Answer,
Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims."

SO ORDERED.

Dated:~\. i ,2015
New York, New York

United States District Judge

2