Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc. v. Bradlees, Inc.

Full title: Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc., Prl Usa Holdings, Inc., Nike, Inc.…

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

Date published: Jan 17, 2002

99 Civ. 4467 (WK) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2002)

Opinion

99 Civ. 4467 (WK)

January 17, 2002

For Plaintiffs: Louis S. Ederer, Michael D. Pantalony, Gursky Ederer, P.C., New York, NY.

For Defendants MD Sportswear Corp. and Dalia Wallach: Leonard S. Baum, Dean T. Cho, Solomon, Zauderer, Ellenhorn, Frischer Sharp, New York, NY.

For Defendant Bradlees, Inc.: Lawrence M. Sands, New York, NY; Jay T. Hahn, Goodwin, Proctor Hoar LLP, New York, NY.

For Defendants BL Enterprises of NY, Inc. and Jack Schwartz: Lawrence M. Sands, New York, NY.

For Defendant Marty Mirkin: William A. Rome, Hoffman Pollok Pickholz LLP, New York, NY.

ORDER

WHITMAN KNAPP, Senior U.S.D.J.

While our decision with respect to Plaintiff Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc.'s, PRL USA Holdings, Inc.'s, Nike, Inc.'s, Adidas Salomon AG's, Adidas International BV's, and Adidas America's ("Plaintiffs") motion to dismiss Defendant MD Sportswear Corp.'s and Dalia Wallach's ("Defendants") malicious prosecution counterclaims was still pending, Defendants moved for leave to file an Amended Answer which would have added new counterclaims and new parties and amended and supplemented the original malicious prosecution counterclaims. Although we denied Defendants leave to add new counterclaims and new parties, we granted their request to amend and supplement the original malicious prosecution counterclaims by way of an Amended Answer. See Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc. v. Bradlees, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2002) (unpublished memorandum and order).

Given that our decision has allowed Defendants to modify the allegations underlying the original malicious prosecution counterclaims which are the subject of Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss, we will permit the parties to file supplemental memoranda addressing the amended counterclaims. Plaintiffs may file a concise supplemental memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss (not exceeding twenty-five pages in length) which addresses any arguments arising from the amendments to the malicious prosecution counterclaims. Plaintiffs may file such a memorandum on or before January 29, 2002. Defendants may thereafter file a concise supplemental memorandum in response to Plaintiffs' brief (also not exceeding twenty-five pages in length) on or before February 12, 2002.

SO ORDERED.