Sattler v. Dale Pharmacy & Surgical, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: July 15, 2021
• Docket: 1:21-cv-01521
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED Lisa Sattler d/b/a Midtown East Physical Therapy, DOC DATE FILED: 7/15/2021 Plaintiff, -against- 21 Civ. 1521 (AT) Dale Pharmacy & Surgical, Inc., ORDER Defendant. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's letter requesting to amend the complaint, ECF No. 33, and associated letter briefing, ECF Nos. 35-36. Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that courts “should freely give leave” to amend a complaint “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. “Although Rule 21, and not Rule 15(a), normally governs the addition of new parties to an action,” FTD Corp. v. Banker’s Tr. Co., 954 F. Supp. 106, 109 (S.D.N-Y. 1997), “the showing necessary under Rule 21 is the same as that required under Rule 15(a),” Johnson v. Bryson, 851 F.Supp.2d 688, 703 (S.D.N-Y. 2012). Here, Defendant has not demonstrated that the proposed amendment would be futile or otherwise prohibited under Rule 15. See Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Graduation Source, LLC, No. 14 Civ. 3232, 2016 WL 1271693, at *5 (S.D.N-Y. Mar. 29, 2016) (holding that an individual defendant “may be held personally liable for violations of the TCPA if he had direct, personal participation in or personally authorized the conduct found to have violated the statute.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)); Nordco, A.S. v. Ledes, No. 95 Civ. 7753, 1999 WL 1243883, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 1999) (stating that a potential new defendant being judgment- proof does not “by itself. . . convince the [c]ourt to deny leave to amend”). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. By July 29, 2021, Plaintiff shall file her amended complaint. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 15, 2021 New York, New York ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge