Tesla v. Pelinkovic
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-08901
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Tesla v. Pelinkovic, Judge Caproni granted in part an adjournment request and denied without prejudice a request to stay discovery.
Matthew Tesla and Drgut Pelinkovic a/k/a Doug Pelinkovic; the order set the amended-complaint deadline and rescheduled the initial pretrial conference while leaving open a renewed request to pause discovery.
What happened
In Matthew Tesla v. Drgut Pelinkovic, the defendant asked the court to pause discovery while his motion to dismiss was pending. The defendant also said Tesla planned to file an amended complaint that could add claims and parties.
The defendant alternatively asked to move the initial pretrial conference from January 31 to March 28 or a later date. Tesla did not agree to either request. The court allowed Tesla to amend the complaint once as a matter of right by February 7, 2025.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted in part the request to move the conference, setting it for February 21, 2025, and denied without prejudice the request to stay discovery because the pending motion to dismiss would become irrelevant once the amended complaint was filed. The defendant may renew the discovery request regarding a future motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Tesla v. Pelinkovic · No. 1:24-cv-08901
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 23, 2025
Background
The defendant asked the court to stay discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) while the defendant's motion to dismiss was pending. A discovery stay pauses the exchange of information and evidence between the parties. The defendant argued that the motion could dispose of the case or narrow the claims and that discovery could be costly or duplicative, particularly because Tesla intended to file an amended complaint.
The defendant alternatively asked the court to adjourn, or move, the initial pretrial conference from January 31, 2025, to March 28, 2025, or a later date. Tesla did not consent to either request. The opinion includes the defendant's arguments that Tesla's claims depended on an alleged oral partnership concerning cryptocurrency investments, but the court's order did not decide whether those claims were legally sufficient.
Rulings
The court granted in part the request to adjourn the initial pretrial conference. Under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), Tesla could amend the pleading once as a matter of right no later than 21 days after service of the motion to dismiss, so the court required the amended complaint by Friday, February 7, 2025. The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference to Friday, February 21, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The joint letter and proposed case-management plan were due February 13, 2025.
The court denied without prejudice the request to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss because that motion would be rendered moot by the amended complaint. “Without prejudice” means the defendant was not barred from making the request again. The court directed the parties to discuss a renewed request to stay discovery at the February 21 conference and in the required pre-conference joint letter, subject to the judge's individual practice concerning written submissions about discovery disputes.
Effect of the Order
This order addressed scheduling and discovery only. It did not rule on the merits of Tesla's claims or decide the pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.