Lamour v. Musarra
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:24-cv-00903
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lamour v. Musarra, Judge Aaron granted defendants’ motion to stay discovery while their motion to dismiss Donna Lamour’s amended pleading remains pending.
The order pauses discovery for Donna Lamour and the defendants in the action while the defendants’ motion to dismiss is pending.
What happened
In Lamour v. Musarra, defendants asked the court to pause discovery while their motion to dismiss Donna Lamour’s amended pleading was pending. The case concerns claims arising from a state-court foreclosure judgment, and the court had previously found that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the original complaint.
The court applied a rule allowing discovery to be paused for good cause. It found that defendants had presented strong arguments for dismissing the action, discovery would likely be burdensome and waste resources, and a short pause would not unfairly harm Lamour.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted defendants’ motion and stayed discovery until the court decides the pending motion to dismiss. This order did not decide the motion to dismiss itself.
The detailed version
- Lamour v. Musarra · No. 1:24-cv-00903
- Stewart Aaron
- Apr. 9, 2025
Background
Donna Lamour filed the action asserting claims arising from a state-court foreclosure judgment. Defendants previously sought dismissal and a discovery stay. The court stayed discovery in September 2024, and later recommended dismissing the original complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, while allowing Lamour to amend if she could assert a plausible claim that did not require the federal court to review, change, or reverse the foreclosure judgment. District Judge Clarke adopted that recommendation on February 13, 2025.
Lamour filed an amended pleading on March 7, 2025. Defendants filed another motion to dismiss on March 26, 2025, and then asked the court to stay discovery while that motion was pending. The opinion states that the court had not received a response from Lamour as of the order’s date.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may stay discovery during a pending motion to dismiss when there is good cause. The court considered three factors: whether defendants made a strong showing that Lamour’s claims were unmeritorious, how broad and burdensome the discovery would be, and whether staying discovery would unfairly prejudice Lamour.
Court’s analysis
The court found that all three factors favored a stay. First, defendants presented strong arguments that the amended pleading again asked the court to review, change, or reverse the foreclosure judgment, supporting their position that the action should be dismissed. Second, the court found that discovery would likely be burdensome, waste resources, and impose an undue burden on defendants, citing Lamour’s numerous requests for admissions. Third, the court found that Lamour would not be unfairly prejudiced because the motion to dismiss was pending and the stay was expected to last only a short time.
Disposition
Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted defendants’ motion to stay discovery. Discovery was stayed pending the court’s decision on the pending motion to dismiss. The order did not decide that motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.