Imhof v. New York CIty Housing Authority
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-01880
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Imhof v. New York City Housing Authority, Judge Cronan ordered John Imhof to say whether he wants discovery before a possible ruling on Daniel Sherrod’s motion.
John Imhof and Daniel Sherrod, concerning limited discovery about whether Sherrod was a federal employee during the relevant period.
What happened
In Imhof v. New York City Housing Authority, Daniel Sherrod asked the court to dismiss the claims against him. He submitted a certification stating that he was a United States Department of Housing and Urban Development employee during the relevant period.
Because that certification was outside the complaint, Sherrod asked the court to treat part of his dismissal request as a request for summary judgment if the court considered the certification. The court directed John Imhof to tell it by June 28, 2024, whether he wanted discovery limited to whether Sherrod was a federal employee during the relevant times.
Judge John P. Cronan did not decide Sherrod’s motion to dismiss or convert it to a summary-judgment motion. The order only addressed whether Imhof wanted limited discovery on Sherrod’s employment status.
The detailed version
- Imhof v. New York CIty Housing Authority · No. 1:23-cv-01880
- John Cronan
- June 21, 2024
Background
Defendant Daniel Sherrod moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). In support, he submitted a certification from the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York stating, among other things, that Sherrod was an employee of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development during the relevant period.
Issue concerning material outside the pleadings
The certification was outside the pleadings, meaning it was not part of the complaint and its attached materials. Sherrod asked that, if the court considered the certification when evaluating the Rule 12(b)(6) portion of his motion, the court convert that portion into a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. A summary-judgment motion can rely on material outside the pleadings, but the opposing party must have a reasonable opportunity to present relevant material.
Order
The court directed Plaintiff John Imhof to advise the court by June 28, 2024, whether he wanted discovery on the sole question of whether Sherrod was a federal employee during all times relevant to the claims against Sherrod.
What the order decided
Judge John P. Cronan did not grant or deny Sherrod’s motion to dismiss, did not decide whether Sherrod was a federal employee, and did not state that the motion had been converted to summary judgment. The order addressed only Imhof’s opportunity to request limited discovery on that employment-status question.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.