Order | Filed: September 21, 2026
| Entered: September 21, 2026
GrubMarket, Inc. v. Ciste Inc. et al
Agriculture Acts | New York Eastern
Order on Motion to Dismiss
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Defendant Shu Lin's ("Defendant") notice of motion 29 to dismiss on the grounds asserted in her motion 14 for a pre-motion conference in anticipation of her motion to dismiss. Defendant advances two arguments. First, Defendant argues that the claims against her must be dismissed because she was not included in the captions of the First Amended Complaint or Summons. (Def. Mot. at 1-3, ECF No. 14.) Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs claim should be dismissed against her because she is not personally liable for the contract between Plaintiff and Ciste Inc. (Id. at 3.) The Court finds both arguments unavailing.
It is true that Defendant was not included in the captions of the First Amended Complaint or the Summons. However, Plaintiff's failure to include Defendant from the captions does not warrant Defendant's dismissal from the case. See Bishop v. Best Buy, Co. Inc., No. 08 CIV. 8427, 2010 WL 4159566, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2010) ("Plaintiffs failure to name the correct Defendants in his original complaint does not constitute grounds for dismissal."); see also Johnson v. United States, 680 F. Supp. 508, 514-15 n.6 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) ("[T]he omission of a name from the caption is not determinative of whether a defendant is properly in a case. That determination depends upon the allegations in the body of the complaint and not his inclusion in the caption." (quoting Hoffman v. Halden, 268 F.2d 280, 303-04 (9th Cir. 1959) (quotations marks omitted)). In any event, the Court deems the Amended Complaint and Summons amended nunc pro tunc to include Defendant.
As to Defendant's personal liability, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded that Defendant is personally liable. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant arise out of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c) ("PACA"). The Second Circuit has held that liability under PACA extends to any "individual who is in a position to control the assets of the PACA trust and fails to preserve them." S. Katzman Produce Inc. v. Yadid, 999 F.3d 867, 876 (2d Cir. 2021) (citing Coosemans Specialties, Inc. v. Gargiulo, 485 F.3d 701, 705 (2d Cir. 2007)). Plaintiff clearly alleges that Defendant was in a position to control and dissipate Plaintiff's PACA trust assets. (Am. Compl. 7, 21, 22-34.) Thus, Defendant may be held personally liable.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds both arguments raised in Defendant's motion for a pre-motion conference unconvincing. Accordingly, Defendant's motion 29 to dismiss on the grounds asserted in her motion for a pre-motion conference is DENIED.
Ordered by Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on 9/21/2026. (CG)