Reyes v. Yager Esthetics Estetica
1:24-cv-03206
| S.D.N.Y. | Apr 21, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Yandy Reyes filed suit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and NY General Business Law (GBL) § 396-AA, stemming from 13 unsolicited text messages.
- The original complaint named Yager Esthetics Estetica, Jeffrey S. Yager, and unnamed defendants.
- A Rule 26(f) scheduling order set January 15, 2025, as the deadline to amend pleadings or add new parties.
- Reyes sought to amend the complaint to add SolutionReach, Inc. as a defendant upon learning it allegedly participated in sending the messages.
- The motion to amend was filed on the deadline, the day after Reyes learned SolutionReach's identity; defendants did not oppose the motion.
- Claims against previously named NewBeauty Media Group, LLC were settled and dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leave to amend complaint to add new party | Amendment is timely, in good faith, and necessary based on new info | No opposition | Granted |
| Undue delay | Motion filed within court deadline, promptly after new info learned | No opposition | No undue delay |
| Bad faith or dilatory motive | No evidence of bad faith; acted diligently | No opposition | None found |
| Futility or prejudice of amendment | Amendment not futile or prejudicial; early stage of litigation | No opposition | No futility/prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Soroof Trading Dev. Co. v. GE Microgen, Inc., 283 F.R.D. 142 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Rule 15 and Rule 21 amendments governed by similar liberal standards)
- Monahan v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Corrs., 214 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 2000) (Leave to amend freely given absent undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility)
- Block v. First Blood Assocs., 988 F.2d 344 (2d Cir. 1993) (Amendments should not be denied if they will not significantly delay proceedings)