Kelvin Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury LLC, Ira Bernstein, and Mort Marcus

S.D. New York

Kelvin Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury LLC, Ira Bernstein, and Mort Marcus

DecidedOctober 28, 2025

Docket1:22-cv-01687

StatusUnknown

This text of Kelvin Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury LLC, Ira Bernstein, and Mort Marcus (Kelvin Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury LLC, Ira Bernstein, and Mort Marcus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kelvin Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury LLC, Ira Bernstein, and Mort Marcus, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

KELVIN HUNTER, Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 22 Civ. 1687 (PGG) DEBMAR-MERCURY LLC, IRA BERNSTEIN, and MORT MARCUS, Defendants.

PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.: As discussed at the October 23, 2025 conference, Plaintiff's amended motion for leave to file an amended complaint is due on December 8, 2025. The proposed amended complaint is to be attached as an exhibit to any such motion. Defendants’ opposition is due on January 10, 2026. Plaintiff's reply, if any, is due on January 24, 2026. As discussed at the October 23, 2025 conference, Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint must set forth the factual basis for each new cause of action. In the accompanying motion seeking leave to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must explain — as an initial matter — why he did not comply with this Court’s June 10, 2025 scheduling order (Dkt. No. 70) directing him to file any motion for leave to amend by September 11, 2025. Although a plaintiff may amend a complaint after a scheduling order deadline, under Rule 16(b)(4), the plaintiff may do so only upon a showing of good cause. Sacerdote v. New York Univ., 9 F.4th 95, 115 (2d Cir. 2021), cert. denied, ——- U.S. ——, 142 S. Ct. 1112, 212 L.Ed.2d 9 (2022). “Whether good cause exists turns on the ‘diligence of the moving party.”” Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329, 335 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Grochowski v. Phoenix Constr., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir. 2003)). Callahan v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 96 F.4th 362, 370 (2d Cir. 2024). Accordingly, Plaintiff must show “good cause” for his failure to comply with the Court’s scheduling order.

In Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend, he must also explain how the facts alleged in the proposed amended complaint are sufficient to establish each new cause of action. Plaintiff is reminded that this Court’s Pro Se Office — contact information for which is listed on the Court’s website — may be of assistance in connection with court procedures. Dated: New York, New York October 28, 2025 SO ORDERED.

Paul G. Gardephe United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

KELVIN HUNTER, Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 22 Civ. 1687 (PGG) DEBMAR-MERCURY LLC, IRA BERNSTEIN, and MORT MARCUS, Defendants.

PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.: As discussed at the October 23, 2025 conference, Plaintiff's amended motion for leave to file an amended complaint is due on December 8, 2025. The proposed amended complaint is to be attached as an exhibit to any such motion. Defendants’ opposition is due on January 10, 2026. Plaintiff's reply, if any, is due on January 24, 2026. As discussed at the October 23, 2025 conference, Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint must set forth the factual basis for each new cause of action. In the accompanying motion seeking leave to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must explain — as an initial matter — why he did not comply with this Court’s June 10, 2025 scheduling order (Dkt. No. 70) directing him to file any motion for leave to amend by September 11, 2025. Although a plaintiff may amend a complaint after a scheduling order deadline, under Rule 16(b)(4), the plaintiff may do so only upon a showing of good cause. Sacerdote v. New York Univ., 9 F.4th 95, 115 (2d Cir. 2021), cert. denied, ——- U.S. ——, 142 S. Ct. 1112, 212 L.Ed.2d 9 (2022). “Whether good cause exists turns on the ‘diligence of the moving party.”” Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329, 335 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Grochowski v. Phoenix Constr., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir. 2003)). Callahan v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 96 F.4th 362, 370 (2d Cir. 2024). Accordingly, Plaintiff must show “good cause” for his failure to comply with the Court’s scheduling order.

In Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend, he must also explain how the facts alleged in the proposed amended complaint are sufficient to establish each new cause of action. Plaintiff is reminded that this Court’s Pro Se Office — contact information for which is listed on the Court’s website — may be of assistance in connection with court procedures. Dated: New York, New York October 28, 2025 SO ORDERED.

Paul G. Gardephe United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kelvin Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury LLC, Ira Bernstein, and Mort Marcus, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelvin-hunter-v-debmar-mercury-llc-ira-bernstein-and-mort-marcus-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack