Der Boghossian v. Capella University, LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-03007
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Der Boghossian v. Capella University, LLC: Judge Caproni granted Capella’s request to stay discovery pending its anticipated motion to dismiss.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the proposed class action are affected because discovery is paused pending defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
What happened
In Der Boghossian v. Capella University, LLC, plaintiffs brought a proposed class action alleging that Capella failed to disclose information about a New York law governing clinical training. They asserted claims under New York consumer-protection laws, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
Capella asked the court to pause discovery until it ruled on Capella’s expected motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Capella argued that the motion presented substantial grounds for dismissing the case and that immediate discovery would impose significant costs, while plaintiffs would not be unfairly harmed by a brief delay.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the application and ordered that discovery be stayed pending defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Der Boghossian v. Capella University, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-03007
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 8, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs filed a proposed class action against Capella University LLC and Strategic Education, Inc. They alleged that Capella failed to disclose that a provision of a New York statute allowing Capella learners to perform clinical training in New York was subject to periodic review and renewal by the New York State Legislature and could be repealed.
The complaint asserted claims under New York consumer-protection laws, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Capella previously moved to dismiss the original complaint. After the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, the court denied that earlier motion as moot. Capella then obtained permission to file a renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint, with that motion due on August 23, 2024.
Motion to Stay Discovery
Capella filed a letter motion asking the court to stay, or pause, discovery until the court ruled on the anticipated motion to dismiss. Capella argued that the forthcoming motion would present substantial arguments for dismissing the claims in their entirety. It also argued that discovery would be burdensome because the case was a proposed class action and the plaintiffs had indicated that they intended to seek extensive discovery.
Capella further argued that the plaintiffs would not suffer unfair prejudice from a brief stay. According to the motion, briefing on the anticipated motion to dismiss would close by October 11, 2024.
Ruling
The court’s endorsed order states: “Application GRANTED. Discovery is STAYED pending Defendants’ anticipated Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.” Judge Valerie Caproni therefore granted Capella’s application to pause discovery. The order did not decide the anticipated motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.