Cedar Communities At Staunton I v. A Place For Mom
Cedar Communities At Staunton I, LLC, d/b/a Birch Gardens v. A Place For Mom, Inc.
- Ho
- 1:24-cv-09737
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cedar Communities v. A Place For Mom, Judge Ho granted a discovery stay and postponed deadlines while A Place For Mom’s dismissal motion is pending.
Cedar Communities At Staunton I, LLC and A Place For Mom, Inc.; discovery is paused, and the identified case-management dates are postponed indefinitely.
What happened
Cedar Communities At Staunton I, LLC, doing business as Birch Gardens, sued A Place For Mom, Inc. The parties jointly asked the court to pause discovery and postpone an upcoming filing deadline and initial pretrial conference until the court decided A Place For Mom’s planned motion to dismiss.
The court granted the request to stay discovery. It also postponed indefinitely the initial pretrial conference and the deadline for submitting the joint letter and case management plan. The court noted that both parties agreed to the stay, that no discovery was pending, and that the plaintiff identified no prejudice from the delay.
Judge Dale E. Ho said the order did not express a view on the merits of the motion to dismiss. The court found, after an initial review, that the motion was not frivolous and raised threshold issues including standing, meaning whether the plaintiff could bring certain claims.
The detailed version
- Cedar Communities At Staunton I v. A Place For Mom · No. 1:24-cv-09737
- Ho
- Mar. 19, 2025
Background
The parties jointly requested that the court stay discovery while Defendant A Place For Mom, Inc. pursued a motion to dismiss. They also asked the court to postpone the March 20, 2025 deadline for submitting a joint letter and case management plan and the March 27, 2025 initial pretrial conference. The request stated that no discovery was pending and that the plaintiff agreed to the discovery stay.
The parties argued that resolving the motion to dismiss before discovery would avoid unnecessary expense and burden while the pleadings remained unsettled. The planned motion would challenge, among other things, whether the plaintiff had standing to bring certain claims under New York’s General Business Law.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that district courts may stay discovery for good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). It considered the parties’ agreement, the lack of pending discovery, the absence of identified prejudice to the plaintiff, and its initial view that the motion to dismiss was not frivolous. The court also noted that the motion raised threshold issues, including standing.
The court expressly stated that it was expressing no view on the merits of the motion to dismiss.
Disposition
The court granted the parties’ request for a stay of discovery pending resolution of the defendant’s motion. It ordered that the initial pretrial conference and the deadline for submitting the joint letter and case management plan be postponed indefinitely, using the term “sine die.” The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 24.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.