Suarez v. Ralph, Paco & Roberto, Inc. et al
Filing
67
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 52 MOTION to Amend/Correct COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE NAMED PLAINTIFF AND AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER. filed by Pamela Suarez. The motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, and to amend the Court& #039;s Civil Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, is GRANTED. By October 18, 2019, plaintiff's counsel shall file the second amended class action complaint on the docket. Further, by October 29, 2019, counsel shall confer regarding a mutua lly agreeable extension of discovery deadlines and shall submit a joint proposed Revised Civil Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion. (Doc. #52). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 10/15/19) (yv)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------x
PAMELA SUAREZ, individually on behalf of
:
herself and all others similarly situated,
:
:
Plaintiff,
v.
:
:
CALIFORNIA NATURAL LIVING, INC.,
:
:
d/b/a CALIFORNIA BABY + KIDS,
Defendant.
:
--------------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
17 CV 9847 (VB)
Briccetti, J.:
Plaintiff Pamela Suarez brings this putative class action against defendant California
Natural Living, Inc., doing business as California Baby + Kids, claiming defendant engaged in
deceptive marketing and sales of thirty-two cosmetics products.
Now pending is plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the amended complaint to
substitute a new named plaintiff in Suarez’s place, and to amend the Court’s Civil Case
Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. (Doc. #52).
For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
BACKGROUND
The Court briefly summarizes the nature of the case to the extent necessary to resolve the
pending motion, accepting plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true and drawing all
reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor.
Plaintiff claims defendant engaged in deceptive and misleading business practices
respecting sales and marketing of thirty-two cosmetics products (the “products”), of which
plaintiff allegedly purchased three. Namely, plaintiff says defendant markets and advertises the
products as natural despite the fact that they contain synthetic ingredients. The amended
1
complaint claims defendant’s misrepresentations in this regard induced plaintiff and the putative
class members to buy products different from what defendant represented, at price premiums
plaintiff and the putative class members would not have otherwise paid. Plaintiff further alleges
she would not have purchased the products had defendant truthfully described their ingredients.
Plaintiff asserts an assortment of consumer protection and related claims under federal and state
law.
On April 8, 2019, after granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion to dismiss
the amended complaint, the Court held an initial pretrial conference and issued a Civil Case
Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. (Doc. #48). Pursuant to that Order, “Amended pleadings
may not be filed and additional parties may not be joined except with leave of the Court. Any
motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be filed by May 8, 2019.” (Id. ¶ 3). The
Order further stated, “No extensions will be granted absent compelling circumstances.” (Id.
¶ 16). Plaintiff did not request an extension of the May 8 deadline to move to amend or join
additional parties.
On August 14, 2019, plaintiff filed the instant motion (i) for leave to substitute putative
class member Rachelyn Kramer for Suarez as the named plaintiff, and (ii) to amend the
discovery plan and scheduling order. (Doc. #52). Plaintiff states Kramer is a New York citizen
who, in 2017, purchased the same products as plaintiff, with one exception.
Plaintiff has filed a proposed second amended class action complaint listing Kramer as
the lone named plaintiff. (Doc. #53-1). That proposed pleading appears substantively identical
to Suarez’s operative amended complaint. 1
1
The proposed second amended complaint omits the injunctive claims previously
dismissed by the Court.
2
In support of the instant motion, Suarez filed an affidavit stating, “Recent work
obligations that have arisen over the past few month[s] along with ongoing family obligations
have caused me to doubt whether I can commit the time and effort that might be required to
continue to lead this case.” (Doc. #55 ¶ 3). The affidavit further states, “I have regretfully
decided that I may not be the best person to lead this case . . . after evaluating the
unpredictability of my schedule over the next few months.” (Id. ¶¶ 5–6).
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Standards
Rule 15 provides that courts “should freely give leave” to amend a pleading “when
justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). But courts have “discretion to deny leave for good
reason, including futility, bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice to the opposing party.”
McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Foman v. Davis,
371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
Rule 16(b)(4) applies when a party moves to amend a pleading after the court-ordered
deadline to do so has expired. Under that rule, a court may deny leave to amend if the movant
“has failed to establish good cause” for why the deadline could not reasonably have been met.
Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326, 340 (2d Cir. 2000). “‘[G]ood cause’ depends
on the diligence of the moving party,” id. (citations omitted), and is lacking if “the proposed
amendment rests on information that the party knew, or should have known, in advance of the
deadline,” Enzymotec Ltd. v. NBTY, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 2d 527, 536 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). A court may deny leave to amend for lack of diligence
even if amendment would not prejudice the non-movant. See Gullo v. City of New York, 540
F. App’x 45, 47 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order).
3
“There is an obvious tension between Rules 15(a) and 16(b). On one hand, Rule 15(a)
directs the court to grant leave to amend ‘freely.’ On the other hand, Rule 16(b) states that the
court should not amend a scheduling order without a showing of ‘good cause.’” Fresh Del
Monte Produce, Inc. v. Del Monte Foods, Inc., 304 F.R.D. 170, 174 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (citations
omitted). Recognizing this tension, district courts in this Circuit have held they have “discretion
to grant a motion to amend even where the moving party has not shown diligence in complying
with a deadline for amendments in a Rule 16 scheduling order.” Olaf Sööt Design, LLC v.
Daktronics, Inc., 299 F. Supp. 3d 395, 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (citing Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Deli,
Inc., 496 F.3d 229, 244 (2d Cir. 2007)) (further citations omitted).
Rule 21 governs misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties. In relevant part, it authorizes a
court to “at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. “The same liberal
standard for amending pleadings under Rule 15(a) applies to the joinder of parties under Rule 21.
However, a motion to join additional parties is subject to the ‘good cause’ requirement of Rule
16([b]) if the time to join additional parties has expired.” Kleeberg v. Eber, 331 F.R.D. 302, 315
(S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citations omitted). “In exercising its discretion under Rule 21, the court must
consider principles of fundamental fairness and judicial efficiency. As part of this inquiry, the
court should consider whether an order under Rule 21 would prejudice any party, or would result
in undue delay.” In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Sec. Litig., 214 F.R.D. 152,
155 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting Moore’s Federal Practice—Civil §§ 21.02[4], 21.05 (2002)).
II.
Application
In an exercise of its discretion, the Court grants plaintiff’s application for leave to
substitute Kramer in Suarez’s place.
4
First, plaintiff has clearly shown good cause for failing to meet the applicable deadline.
Plaintiff’s counsel acted with diligence upon learning plaintiff felt she could no longer serve as
class representative. The Court accepts plaintiff’s counsel’s representation that they began
searching for a potential replacement class representative “[a]s soon as Suarez broached the
possibility that she might not be able to continue as the plaintiff.” (Doc. #63 at 2). Plaintiff’s
counsel then informed defense counsel during a July 15, 2019, telephone call of plaintiff’s desire
to be substituted out of the case. On August 1, 2019, defense counsel told plaintiff’s counsel by
email that defendant would not consent to plaintiff’s substitution. Plaintiff filed the instant
motion less than two weeks later, on August 14, 2019. Under the circumstances, the conduct of
plaintiff’s counsel shows diligence adequate to satisfy Rule 16(b).
Second, the Court will extend discovery deadlines to afford defendant adequate time to
conduct discovery. Insofar as defendant wishes to conduct discovery respecting Suarez’s
standing to commence this action (see Doc. #61 at 8–9), the Court sees no reason why Suarez’s
substitution would impede defendant’s ability to do so. Moreover, discovery is at an early stage,
plaintiff has not yet sought class certification, and the proposed second amended complaint does
not materially alter any of plaintiff’s remaining claims. Accordingly, permitting amendment will
not prejudice defendant.
Third, the Court finds no suggestion of bad faith or undue delay by plaintiff’s counsel,
nor would the proposed amendment be futile.
Last, and certainly not least, denying plaintiff leave to amend would disserve the guiding
purpose of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: to resolve the parties’ dispute in a “just, speedy,
and inexpensive” manner. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. If the Court were to deny the present motion,
Kramer could simply commence a separate action substantively identical to this one, potentially
5
requiring the parties to revisit matters this Court has already addressed. Under the
circumstances, the Court declines to invite that duplicative procedural exercise here. 2
CONCLUSION
The motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, and to amend the Court’s Civil
Case Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, is GRANTED.
By October 18, 2019, plaintiff’s counsel shall file the second amended class action
complaint on the docket.
Further, by October 29, 2019, counsel shall confer regarding a mutually agreeable
extension of discovery deadlines and shall submit a joint proposed Revised Civil Case Discovery
Plan and Scheduling Order.
The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion. (Doc. #52).
Dated: October 15, 2019
White Plains, NY
SO ORDERED:
____________________________
Vincent L. Briccetti
United States District Judge
2
Court.
Counsel are reminded that Rule 1’s statutory imperative applies to them as well as to the
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?