Estevez v. Chinese American Planning Council Home Attendant Program Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-07069
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Estevez v. Chinese American Planning Council, Judge Cronan granted defendants leave to seek a discovery stay and set briefing deadlines.
The order affects the defendants, who may file a motion to pause discovery, and the plaintiff, who may oppose that motion. It sets briefing deadlines but does not resolve the requested stay or the pending motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Estevez v. Chinese American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc., et al., the defendants asked for permission to file a motion to pause discovery while their motion to dismiss was pending. The plaintiff opposed that request and asked the court to require defendants to continue meeting their discovery obligations.
The plaintiff argued that the court’s existing case-management plan required discovery to continue and that defendants had already begun the discovery process. The plaintiff also addressed defendants’ stated intention to seek arbitration as to certain potential class members.
Judge John P. Cronan granted defendants permission to file the motion to pause discovery. Defendants must file it by April 14, 2025; the plaintiff’s opposition is due May 5, 2025; and defendants’ reply is due May 16, 2025. The clerk was directed to close Docket Number 31.
The detailed version
- Estevez v. Chinese American Planning Council Home Attendant Program Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-07069
- John Cronan
- Mar. 21, 2025
Background
The plaintiff’s counsel submitted a letter opposing defendants’ request for permission to file a motion to stay, or pause, discovery. The defendants sought a stay until thirty days after the court decided their pending motion to dismiss. The plaintiff argued that the court had already ordered the parties to proceed under a case-management plan, despite knowing about the motion to dismiss.
The plaintiff also argued that defendants had requested a discovery stay in a proposed case-management plan, but the court’s order adopting that plan did not grant the request. The plaintiff further addressed defendants’ stated intention to seek an order requiring arbitration for certain potential class members and argued that such a motion should be brought after class certification.
Court’s Action
The court granted defendants’ request for leave to file a motion to stay discovery. The court did not decide whether discovery should actually be stayed, whether the motion to dismiss should be granted, whether defendants were employers of the plaintiff or potential class members, or whether arbitration would be required.
Defendants must file the motion by April 14, 2025. The plaintiff must file an opposition by May 5, 2025, and defendants may file a reply by May 16, 2025. The clerk was directed to close Docket Number 31.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.