Castillo v. Pichardo 2230 Restaurant Corp. ( 2022 )

i APPLICATION GRANTED SO ORDERED Sacco & Fillas, LLP CC ° = Attorneys at Law 3/. John G. Koeltl, U.S.D.J. 31-19 Newtown Avenue ‘3 / / Seventh Floor AD vasch 30, 2022 Astoria, NY 11102 Tel: 718 746-3440 a Bas Di Daniel Patrick Moynihan irect: 718 269- 2243 i Direct Fax: 718 559-6517 United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. ctucker@saccofillascom New York, NY 10007-1312 wwwssaccofillas.com Re: astillo v. Pichardo 2230 Restaurant Corp. et al CASE #: 1:21-cv-08756-JGK Tonino Sacco* Elias N. Fillas Luigi Brandimarte* Your Honor: “aioe This firm represents Plaintiff in the above-referenced action. We respectfully submit R. Baez* this letter requesting an Order granting leave to file the First Amended Complaint or, Alexander Berger* alternatively, requesting a pre-motion conference pursuant to the Individual Practices of Judge John G. Koeltl Section TB). David A. Craven ae Defendants are in default. While investigating the default, Plaintiff learned that an Joanne Ghivaraella amendment is required regarding PlaintifPs work schedule, which differed before and after Ronald B. Groman the COVID19 pandemic. Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully requests leave to file the Kaplan First Amended Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Track changes remain to show on the section that was updated. Since Defendants are in default, this application is unopposed. Elliot L. Lewis Patricia R. Lynch gal Albert R. Metum, jt Legal Standard Patrick J. McGrath Lamont K. Rodgers Leave to amend a complaint should be “freely give[n].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see also Peden Foman v Davis, 371 US 178, 83 S Ct 227, 9 L Ed 2d 222 [1962]. A court should not deny a orris J. Schlaf* ; 5 ; 2 Se Pavid--Silvecnan motion to amend unless there is evidence of undue delay, undue prejudice to the defendant, Cindy S. Simms bad faith, or the proposed amendment would be futile. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; Milanese v nition Rust-Oleum Corp., 244 F3d 104 [2d Cir 2001]. . William Sung Clifford R. Tucker Michael S. Warycha In this case, Defendants have not filed an answer. Discovery has not commenced. Delay aeie was unintentional. No prejudice would arise in allowing the amendment. “Also admitted in New Jersey Defendants would not be unduly prejudiced by the amendment of the complaint as the discovery not commenced and a trial date has not been set. See e.g., In re Everfresh Bayside Office: Beverages, Inc., 238 BR 558 [Bankr SDNY 1999] (granting leave to amend and noting that weninciel “[w]hile many documents have been exchanged .. .the trial has not been scheduled and will Suite 300 not be significantly delayed by allowing the Plaintiffs to amend their pleadings.”). Plaintiff Bayside, NY 11361 has not acted in bad faith in seeking to amend the complaint early in this litigation and without clear objection from the Defense. Lastly, amendment of the complaint would not New Jersey Office: be futile. 2160 North Central Road Suite 100-3 Fort Lee, NJ 07624 Ve TM Bi Sacco & Fillas, LLP Attorneys at Law 31-19 Newtown Avenue For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court permit Plaintiff Seventh Floor to file and serve the First Amended Complaint. We thank the Court for its attention to this Astoria, NY 11102 inate Respectfully submitted, By: [sl Chifford Tucker Clifford Tucker, Esq.