Brous v. Eligo Energy, LLC, 1:24-cv-01260

Plaintiffs (New York residents) sued Eligo Energy, alleging deceptive pricing and brought a putative nationwide class action for breach of contract and multiple state consumer-protection statutes; they later limited the proposed class to New York customers.
Plaintiffs amended their complaint and Eligo moved to dismiss out-of-state claims, arguing differences in contracts, lack of statutory standing, forum/resolution clauses, and lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Court limited discovery to New York claims and denied Plaintiffs’ request to expand discovery to four additional jurisdictions (D.C., Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland).
Three weeks after that denial, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended complaint to strike all out-of-state claims and narrow the class to New York customers only.
The Court evaluated the motion under Federal Rules 16 (good cause) and 15 (undue delay, bad faith, futility, undue prejudice) and found Plaintiffs acted diligently, the amendment was not made in bad faith, was not futile, and would not unduly prejudice Defendants.
The Court granted leave to amend and denied Eligo’s pending motion to dismiss as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 16 — good cause to amend after discovery-limiting order	Plaintiffs moved promptly (three weeks) after the Court denied expansion of discovery and say amendment requires no further discovery or deadline changes	Eligo says Plaintiffs had the factual basis earlier (contract productions in Aug 2024) and thus lacked diligence	Court held Plaintiffs showed the requisite diligence and good cause under Rule 16
Rule 15 — undue delay	Plaintiffs filed quickly after the April 16 Order; no undue delay	Eligo contends Plaintiffs waited too long and changed strategy after rulings	Court found no undue delay given the short interval and discovery timeline
Rule 15 — bad faith / forum-shopping	Plaintiffs say amendment conforms to the Court’s order and isn’t forum shopping	Eligo says Plaintiffs plan to relitigate non-New York claims elsewhere and seek tactical advantage	Court found no evidence of bad faith; change in strategy alone is permissible
Rule 15 — futility / prejudice	Plaintiffs argue amendment merely narrows the class and doesn’t add claims or require new discovery	Eligo argues amendment is prejudicial (already incurred costs; will litigate similar issues elsewhere) and could be futile	Court held amendment is not futile, will not unduly prejudice Eligo, and so granted leave to amend; motion to dismiss rendered moot

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility and no need for detailed factual allegations)
Halebian v. Burd, 644 F.3d 122 (Rule 12(b)(6) purpose and assessment)
Sikhs for Justice v. Nath, 893 F. Supp. 2d 598 (standard that motion to dismiss tests formal sufficiency, not merits)
Villager Pond, Inc. v. Town of Darien, 56 F.3d 375 (difference between pleading sufficiency and merits)
Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329 (Rule 15 denial standards: futility, bad faith, undue delay, prejudice)
McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184 (Rule 15’s permissive standard and resolving disputes on merits)
Grochowski v. Phoenix Constr., 318 F.3d 80 (Rule 16 scheduling order modification requires good cause)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (denial of leave to amend is abuse absent good reason)
Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229 (diligence as primary consideration for Rule 16 good-cause inquiry)
Pangburn v. Culbertson, 200 F.3d 65 (futility standard: if it is beyond doubt plaintiff can prove no set of facts)