Osrecovery, Inc. v. One Groupe International, Inc.

Full title: OSRECOVERY, INC., Plaintiff, v. ONE GROUPE INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.…

Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Dec 19, 2002

No. 02 Civ. 8993 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2002)

Opinion

No. 02 Civ. 8993 (LAK)

December 19, 2002

ORDER

LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff has moved for leave to file a second amended complaint adding two named and 3,398 John Doe plaintiffs.

Plaintiff shall file, on or before December 24, 2002, a red- or blacklined copy of the proposed second amended complaint, marked to show the changes as compared with the first amended complaint, and a statement indicating where, if anywhere, in the prolix 54-page proposed amended complaint it is alleged that plaintiff OSRecovery, Inc. is the assignee of any claims against the defendants. Finally, plaintiff shall, on or before that date, show cause why leave to amend, insofar as the proposed second amended complaint would add John Doe Plaintiffs 1-3398, should not be denied as futile in light of the fact that the names of these plaintiffs appear to be known to OSRecovery, Inc., and Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a) requires that the caption of the complaint include "the names of all of the parties." See Doe v. City of New York, 201 F.R.D. 100 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

SO ORDERED.