Wu v. JJW Enterprises, Inc., 1:21-cv-00873

Plaintiffs, former maintenance workers, brought wage and hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) against JJW Enterprises, several individual defendants, and sought amendments to add new parties and class allegations.
Plaintiffs sought to amend the complaint to add two new defendants (including 37-17 Management LLC), remove a deceased defendant (Ding Guang Wai), and add class and collective action claims.
The case experienced multiple discovery extensions, attorney withdrawal, and substitution, with new counsel appearing in February 2023 and seeking to amend the complaint months after the scheduling order’s deadline had passed.
Key factual developments leading to the amendment motion (the existence of 37-17 Management and the death of Ding Guang Wai) were known to prior counsel well before the amendment request.
Defendants opposed the amendments as untimely, prejudicial, and futile.
Plaintiffs and defendants agreed that claims against deceased Ding Guang Wai should be dismissed, as he died before the action commenced.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Good cause for amending pleadings after deadline	New facts emerged; new counsel should not be penalized for prior counsel’s failures	Information was known to prior counsel and not genuinely new	No good cause; negligence/new strategy by new counsel is insufficient
Prejudice to defendants if amendment is allowed	Discovery ongoing, so little prejudice	Amending would cause delay and require re-discovery	Amendment would cause some delay and prejudice
Futility of class and collective action claims	Other employees are similarly situated	Insufficient factual allegations, class is overly broad	Amendment futile; factual showing insufficient
Substitution or removal of deceased defendant	Remove deceased defendant from the case	Agreed; Ding Guang Wai died prior to suit	Motion to remove deceased defendant granted

Grochowski v. Phoenix Constr., 318 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2003) (Rule 16(b) good cause requirement governs post-deadline amendments)
Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2007) (Court can deny amendments where no good cause)
Lucente v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., 310 F.3d 243 (2d Cir. 2002) (Amendment may be denied as futile if proposed claim couldn't survive a motion to dismiss)
Dougherty v. North Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2002) (Standard for futility in amendments is motion to dismiss standard)
Block v. First Blood Assocs., 988 F.2d 344 (2d Cir. 1993) (Factors for prejudice in amendment determination)