7D Holdings, LLC v. Jawk Holdings LLC, 1:24-cv-00033

7D Holdings, LLC sued Jawk Holdings LLC, GenRev Labs LLC, and later additional defendants for federal trademark infringement, federal and state unfair competition, and federal cyberpiracy.
Plaintiff amended its complaint to add new defendants; the motion to amend was initially challenged for futility but ultimately granted.
Plaintiff sought to extend discovery deadlines; this was granted in part and denied in part—specifically, the extension was denied as to the original defendants.
The new ("Moving") defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), attacking the sufficiency of the amended complaint, after similar arguments had already been addressed in the amendment stage.
Plaintiff also objected to the Magistrate’s order denying the discovery extension, arguing the wrong standard was applied and that good cause existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
12(b)(6) motion's propriety after amendment	Claims against Moving Defendants sufficient; prior futility challenge already addressed.	Amended complaint inadequate; should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.	Motion to dismiss denied—allegations already deemed sufficient under Rule 12(b)(6).
Consideration of affidavits on motion to dismiss	N/A	Submitted affidavits to dispute allegations.	Court disregarded affidavits—not proper at this stage.
Standard for discovery extension	Magistrate applied incorrect standard; Dowling factors inapplicable; good cause exists.	Magistrate applied correct standard; no good cause shown.	Magistrate correctly applied Dowling factors; no clear error—objection overruled.
Factual findings on need to extend discovery	Magistrate’s application of facts incorrect.	Magistrate’s assessment reasonable and supported.	Factual findings not clearly erroneous; no extension warranted.

Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2000) (standard for futility and Rule 12(b)(6) motion are identical)
Massey v. City of Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 1993) (standard for review of magistrate judge's nondispositive order is highly deferential)
Gavitt v. Born, 835 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2016) (affidavits not considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)