Jimenez-Fogarty v. Fogarty

What the court considered

Defendants Thomas Fogarty and Laura Marino asked for a pre-motion conference concerning an anticipated motion to dismiss Plaintiff Sai-Malena Jimenez-Fogarty’s Second Amended Complaint. They also asked the court to suspend the briefing schedule for Jimenez-Fogarty’s pending motion to disqualify counsel until the anticipated dismissal motion was resolved.

The defendants’ letter described proposed arguments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), concerning subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), concerning whether the complaint stated a legally viable claim. The court did not decide those proposed arguments or grant permission to file the anticipated dismissal motion. Instead, it stated that the court would set a date for dismissal motions only after all parties had been served and had an opportunity to answer or request permission to move to dismiss.

Ruling

No opposition was filed to the request to suspend briefing by the deadline set under the judge’s individual practice. The court therefore granted that request. It deemed the motion to disqualify counsel, Docket No. 74, withdrawn without prejudice to reinstatement by letter within 14 days after the dismissal motions are resolved, if the case continues. If reinstated, Plaintiff must discuss a proposed briefing schedule with defendants and include that schedule in the reinstatement letter.

Effect of the order

The order paused the disqualification-motion process; it did not resolve the disqualification issue and did not rule on the anticipated motions to dismiss. The court’s use of “without prejudice to reinstatement” leaves the stated possibility of restoring the disqualification motion under the procedure and deadline specified in the order.