DiMare Homestead, Inc. v. Alphas Co. of N.Y., 547 F. App'x 68

DiMare Homestead, Inc. and DiMare Ruskin, Inc. (Florida produce sellers) sued Alphas Company of New York, Inc. and two individuals for unpaid tomato invoices, originally asserting PACA claims.
At a bench trial, DiMare moved to amend its complaint to add New York common‑law claims including quantum meruit; the District Court granted leave to amend post‑trial.
The District Court found DiMare had not preserved PACA trust rights for most invoices but awarded damages on a quantum meruit theory for the reasonable value of tomatoes delivered.
Damages were calculated using DiMare invoices and USDA market price reports; UCC and account‑stated claims and attorneys’ fees were denied.
Alphas appealed only two points: (1) that allowing the post‑trial amendment without reopening discovery prejudiced Alphas, and (2) that treating invoice prices as reasonable for quantum meruit damages was erroneous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court properly allowed a post‑trial amendment under FRCP 15(b) without reopening discovery	DiMare: evidence supporting the new claims was already before the court at trial; amendment conforms pleadings to trial evidence	Alphas: amendment prejudiced them because it occurred post‑trial without additional discovery	Affirmed — Court upheld amendment; Alphas waived discovery objection by not requesting it below and was not shown to be prejudiced
Whether the District Court clearly erred in calculating quantum meruit damages using invoices and USDA price reports	DiMare: reasonable value established by invoices and market reports in the record	Alphas: invoice prices should not be treated as reasonable value without extra discovery or other evidence	Affirmed — district court’s factual damage findings under the clearly erroneous standard were upheld

Nakahata v. New York‑Presbyterian Healthcare Sys., Inc., 723 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2013) (leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (general principle favoring leave to amend)
Vermont Plastics, Inc. v. Brine, Inc., 79 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 1996) (district court discretion to allow amendments)
MacDraw, Inc. v. CIT Group Equip. Fin., Inc., 157 F.3d 956 (2d Cir. 1998) (abuse of discretion standard for amendment decisions)
Cruz v. Coach Stores, Inc., 202 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2000) (prejudice required to deny Rule 15(b) amendment)
N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, 88 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 1996) (prejudice must show disadvantage in presenting case)
Allianz Ins. Co. v. Lerner, 416 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2005) (appellate review normally will not consider issues raised first on appeal)
Greene v. United States, 13 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1994) (limit on entertaining issues raised first on appeal)
Sniado v. Bank Austria AG, 378 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2004) (exceptions to considering waived issues)
EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2012) (abuse of discretion review for denial of discovery)
Diesel Props S.r.l. v. Greystone Bus. Credit II LLC, 631 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2011) (clear error standard for bench trial factual findings and damages)
Cifra v. General Elec. Co., 252 F.3d 205 (2d Cir. 2001) (deference when two permissible inferences exist)
Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (definition of abuse of discretion)