Houston Lawyers Association v. National Bar Association, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: March 19, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-08495
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : HOUSTON LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, : : Plaintiff, : : -v- : 25 Civ. 8495 (JPC) : NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION, INC., : ORDER : Defendant. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOHN P. CRONAN, United States District Judge:

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ joint status update. See Dkt. 54. On April 15, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., the Court will hold a status conference in lieu of the scheduled hearing. The status conference will occur over Webex. At the scheduled time, counsel for both parties should call (855) 244-8681, access code 2302 755 2307. By April 1, 2026, Plaintiff should file a letter, not to exceed five pages, addressing: (1) Whether Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 or 21 permit the sole plaintiff in a case to file an Amended Complaint substituting itself in favor a party who was not previously a named plaintiff or class member. Plaintiff must address the discussion of this issue in Fox v. Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y., 148 F.R.D. 474 (N.D.N.Y. 1993), and the cases cited therein. (2) Why any injury suffered by Kandace Walters “arise[s] out of or relate[s] to the defendant’s contacts with [the Southern District of New York].” Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 359 (2021) (citation modified). Plaintiff must explain why this case is distinguishable from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, 582 U.S. 255, 265 (2017), where the Supreme Court held there was no specific jurisdiction in California because the “plaintiffs [were] not California residents[,] [did] not claim to have suffered harm in that State[,] . . . [and] all the conduct giving rise to the nonresidents’ claims occurred elsewhere.” (3) Why, in light of the unique circumstances of this case, the Court should grant leave to file an Amended Complaint. See Middle Atl. Utilities Co. v. S. M. W. Dev. Corp., 392 F.2d 380, 384 (2d Cir. 1968) (“It is within the trial judge’s discretion to grant leave to amend a complaint.”); Caddy-Imler Creations, Inc. v. Caddy, 299 F.2d 79, 84 (9th Cir. 1962) (“A motion for leave to amend . . . must be decided upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case.”); Reubens v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Juv. Just., 930 F. Supp. 887, 888 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (“Undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of the amendment are among the reasons to deny leave.”). Defendant may file a letter response, not to exceed three pages, by April 8, 2026. SO ORDERED. VWf22... Dated: March 19, 2026 ° SE New York, New York JOHN P. CRONAN United States District Judge