The opinion
MEMO ENDORSED
H AG E N S R E R M A N Whitney Street whitneyst@hbsslaw.com
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1 FANEUIL HALL SQUARE, 5TH FLOOR
BOSTON, MA 02109
hbsslaw.com
Plaintiffs' request to file a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint is granted. The Court enters
the following briefing schedule: (1) moving papers due
Friday, May 2, 2025; (2) opposition due Friday, May 23,
CM/ECF 2025; and (3) reply due Friday, May 30, 2025.
The Honorable Edgardo Ramos It is SO ORDERED. a Q
United States District Court ne
for the Southern District of New Yo Edgardo Ramos,'U.8.D.J.
40 Foley Square Dated: 4/04/2025 __
Thurgood Marshall United States Co New York, New York
New York, NY 10007
Re: Louisiana Health Services & Indemnity Co. d/b/a BCBS of Louisiana, et al.
v. Celgene Corp. et al., 23-cv-7871-ER (S.D.N.Y.); New York Trades
Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund
v. Celgene Corporation et al., 1:24-cv-02230 (S.D.N.Y); CenterWell
Pharmacy, Inc. v. Celgene Corp. et al., 1:24-cv-06924 (S.D.N.Y,), The
Plaintiffs’ Request for a Pre-motion Conference to Seek Leave to File an
Amended Complaint
Dear Judge Ramos:
On March 31, 2025, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting the
defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Section 2 of the
Sherman Act, and analogous state law claims.! In light of this Opinion and Order, the
plaintiffs seek a process that would allow them to file a motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint. Pursuant to Section 2.A of the Court’s Individual Practices, the
plaintiffs request a pre-motion conference regarding a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint, or if the Court determines that a pre-motion conference is not
necessary, an order allowing the plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend.
In the Second Circuit, “[w]hen a motion to dismiss is granted, the usual practice is
to grant leave to amend the complaint.”? Furthermore, “[a]mendment should only be
ECF Nos. 151-52.
? Hayden v. Cty. Of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42, 53 (2d Cir. 1999); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should
freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”); Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 48
(2d Cir. 1991) (“It is the usual practice upon granting a motion to dismiss to allow leave to replead.”); Perrigo
Pharma International Designated Activity Co. v. Mead Johnson & Co. LLC, 23-cv-00008 (ER), 2024 WL 1375947,
The Honorable Edgardo Ramos
April 3, 2025
Page 2
denied for legitimate reasons such as ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the
part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment,
futility of the amendment, etc.’”3 Here, the plaintiffs’ request to amend comes two days
after the Court’s Opinion and Order,4 the complaint has only been amended once (by one
set of plaintiffs) as of right,5 and the defendants will not be prejudiced by the proposed
amendment, particularly considering that two other active cases have yet to file
amendments as of right.6 The plaintiffs respectfully submit that they should be permitted
to cure any deficiencies identified by the Court in its motion to dismiss opinion.7 If
allowed to file the motion for leave to file an amended complaint, our motion for leave
will attach the proposed amended complaint, as is often required.8
Accordingly, the plaintiffs request a pre-motion conference with the Court to
discuss a motion for leave to amend the pleadings in this matter; or an order allowing the
plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend. Should the Court grant the request for leave
to amend, the plaintiffs propose to file the amended complaint within 45 days from the
date of the Court’s order.
at *21 (S.D.N.Y. April 1, 2024) (Citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) standard and stating that “the usual practice in this
Circuit upon granting a motion to dismiss is to permit amendment of the complaint”) (internal quotations omitted).
3 Brown Media Corp. v. K & L Gates, LLP, 586 B.R. 508, 533 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Ruotolo v. City of New
York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008)).
4 The order, dated March 31, 2025, was entered on the docket on April 1, 2025.
5 See ECF No. 71.
6 See New York Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund v. Celgene
Corporation et al., No. 1:24-cv-02230 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2024), ECF No. 1; CenterWell Pharmacy, Inc. v.
Celgene Corp. et al., 1:24-cv-06924 (S.D.N.Y., Sep. 13, 2024), ECF No. 1.
7 Cruz v. Local 32BJ, No. 22-cv-03068 (JAV) (SDA), 2025 WL 47936, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2025) (“Without the
benefit of a ruling [on a motion to dismiss], many a plaintiff will not see the necessity of amendment or be in a
position to weigh the practicality and possible means of curing specific deficiencies.” (quoting Loreley Fin. v. Wells
Fargo Secs., LLC, 797 F.3d 160, 190 (2d Cir. 2015))).
8 See Curry v. Campbell, 06–cv–2841, 2012 WL 1004894, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2012) (“To satisfy the
requirement of particular[it]y in a motion to amend a pleading, the proposed amended pleading must accompany the
motion so that both the Court and opposing parties can understand the exact changes sought” (citing AT & T Corp.
v. Am. Cash Card Corp., 184 F.R.D. 515, 521 (S.D.N.Y. 1999))).
HAGENS BERMAN
The Honorable Edgardo Ramos
April 3, 2025
Page 3
Sincerely,
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Whitney Street
WS