Adams v. 796-798 Ninth Successor LLC
1:25-cv-00912
S.D.N.Y.Aug 4, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Joshua Adams sought permission to file a Second Amended Complaint in an ongoing federal lawsuit.
- Defendants 796-798 Ninth Successor LLC and Soiree Tea Co. LLC opposed the Plaintiff’s motion, arguing amendment would be futile due to their pending motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
- The Court considered whether to allow amendment or to rule on the pending motion to dismiss.
- Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally favors granting leave to amend when justice so requires, unless there’s undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility.
- At the time of decision, the litigation was at an early stage: no answer filed, no discovery deadlines set, and no undue prejudice to defendants identified.
- The Court ultimately granted leave to amend and denied the pending motion to dismiss as moot, setting deadlines for further pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leave to amend complaint | Leave should be freely given | Amendment is futile due to pending motion to dismiss | Leave to amend granted |
| Mootness of motion to dismiss | Implicit (mooted by amendment) | Motion to dismiss should be decided; amendment futile | Motion to dismiss denied as moot |
| Prejudice from amendment | No undue prejudice present | Amendment would prejudice due to futility | Insufficient prejudice; amendment allowed |
| Futility of amendment | Not directly addressed | Futile because amendment will not cure issues | Futility not analyzed at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (leave to amend should be freely given absent undue delay, bad faith, undue prejudice, or futility)
- Oliver Schs., Inc. v. Foley, 930 F.2d 248 (district court has discretion but must have valid grounds for denying amendment)
- Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42 (usual practice is to grant leave to amend when a motion to dismiss is granted)
- Nat’l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 898 F.3d 243 (no right to serial amendments; courts need not permit repeated amendments)
- Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC, 797 F.3d 160 (Second Circuit strong preference for resolving disputes on the merits)