Flores v. Green
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-05568
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Flores v. Green: Judge Abrams stayed discovery while deciding Defendants’ motion to stay discovery, with possible supplemental briefing after an amended complaint.
Rhonda A. Flores, Gary Green, and Joan DiSalvo. Discovery in the case was paused while the court considered the motion to stay discovery.
What happened
In Flores v. Green, Defendants Gary Green and Joan DiSalvo asked the court to pause discovery while their motions were being considered. The provided text says Plaintiff Rhonda A. Flores had sued them and that Defendants had filed a partial motion to dismiss.
Defendants argued that pausing discovery would avoid unnecessary costs because the motion could reduce the claims in the case. They also argued that the case was at an early stage and that the court-ordered mediation would limit any delay. The text does not show that the court decided the motion to dismiss.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered that discovery be stayed while the court considered Defendants’ motion to stay discovery. The order also said that, if the parties wanted to submit additional briefing after Flores filed an amended complaint, they had to jointly propose a briefing schedule within one week; the amended complaint was due by November 15, 2024.
The detailed version
- Flores v. Green · No. 1:24-cv-05568
- Ronnie Abrams
- Oct. 25, 2024
Background
The provided text consists primarily of a letter from counsel for Defendants Gary Green and Joan DiSalvo requesting a stay of discovery. The letter says that Rhonda A. Flores filed her complaint on July 23, 2024, and that Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss on September 30, 2024. According to the letter, the motion sought dismissal of all claims against DiSalvo and the third through eleventh claims against Green. The text does not state that the court resolved that motion to dismiss.
The letter says that the remaining claims would likely involve possible violations of the New York Labor Law against Green. Defendants asserted that the New York State Department of Labor had valued the wage-related claims at between $11,616.11 and $13,361.59. They also argued that extensive discovery would be disproportionate and unnecessary if the motion to dismiss eliminated claims. These statements are arguments by Defendants, not findings in the order.
The letter further states that the court had ordered the parties to mediate and had deferred a required case-management conference until after mediation. Defendants argued that a discovery stay would impose little prejudice because the case was at an early stage and the stay would last while the court considered the pending motion.
Ruling
The court ordered: “Discovery in this action is hereby stayed pending the Court’s resolution of Defendant’s motion to stay discovery.” The order also provided that, if the parties wished to supplement their briefing after an amended complaint was filed, they were to jointly file a proposed briefing schedule no later than one week after Flores filed that complaint. Under an earlier order referenced in the text, Flores’s amended complaint was due no later than November 15, 2024.
The order does not state a ruling on the partial motion to dismiss, and it does not specify an end date for the discovery stay beyond the court’s resolution of the motion to stay discovery.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.