Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 6, 2025

Johnson v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC

Judge
Figueredo
Docket
1:23-cv-01156
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Johnson v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC, Judge Figueredo found the cited conduct was not a proper basis for Rule 11 sanctions and terminated ECF No. 117.

Who this affects

The order directly concerns Plaintiff Joseph Johnson, Defendant Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC, and the docket entry at ECF No. 117.

What happened

In Johnson v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC, Plaintiff Joseph Johnson identified conduct at ECF Nos. 117 and 118 that he contended warranted action under Rule 11, which governs filings made to the court.

The court explained that the conduct described was not a proper basis for Rule 11 sanctions. It also noted that a motion to dismiss was pending and that, after that motion is resolved, Johnson could ask Defendants for discovery if necessary.

Judge Valerie Figueredo concluded that the identified conduct was not a proper basis for sanctions and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the gavel at ECF No. 117. The order does not expressly state that a motion was denied.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Johnson v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-01156
Judge
Figueredo
Date
Feb. 6, 2025

Background

Plaintiff Joseph Johnson identified conduct at ECF Nos. 117 and 118. The order addresses whether that conduct could support sanctions under Rule 11, a rule concerning certifications made when documents are filed with the court. The court also noted that a motion to dismiss remained pending.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that the conduct identified by Johnson was not the proper basis for a Rule 11 sanction. Citing Second Circuit precedent, the court explained that Rule 11 does not authorize sanctions for merely frustrating conduct; it authorizes sanctions only when a document filed with the court fails to meet the rule’s certification requirements.

The court further stated that, after resolving the pending motion to dismiss, Johnson could ask Defendants for discovery if necessary. The order does not resolve the motion to dismiss or make a ruling on the merits of the underlying dispute.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Figueredo directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the gavel at ECF No. 117. The opinion does not expressly characterize the action as granting or denying a motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.