Khalifa v. Willoughby
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-09559
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Khalifa v. Willoughby, Judge Furman ordered a three-business-day opposition period for a request to pause discovery; no ruling on that request appears.
The request concerned discovery involving Glam NYC Service Corporation and Hotel Housekeeping Inc.; the proposed arrangement would have allowed discovery to continue against Hilton Willoughby III and NY 24th Street Manager VI LLC. The order shown sets an opposition deadline for the plaintiff or other opposing party but does not decide the request.
What happened
In Khalifa v. Willoughby, lawyers for Glam NYC Service Corporation and Hotel Housekeeping Inc. asked the court to pause discovery involving those defendants while their motion to dismiss was decided. The filing concerns claims under New York State and New York City human-rights laws arising from alleged sexual harassment by Hilton Willoughby III.
The defendants argued that the complaint did not adequately connect Glam NYC or Hotel Housekeeping to the alleged conduct. They said the complaint identified NY 24th Street Manager VI LLC as Willoughby’s employer and alleged that Glam NYC mainly processed the plaintiff’s paychecks. They also argued that pausing discovery would avoid unnecessary expense and delay.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that any opposition be filed within three business days under his Individual Rules. The text provided does not show that Judge Furman granted or denied the requested discovery pause or ruled on the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Khalifa v. Willoughby · No. 1:24-cv-09559
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 11, 2025
Nature of the Filing
The text is a defense lawyer’s letter requesting a stay of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). A discovery stay temporarily pauses the exchange of evidence while another motion is pending. The letter was filed on behalf of Glam NYC Service Corporation and Hotel Housekeeping Inc., identified as “HHI.”
The court’s response, as shown in the text, states: “Per the Court’s Individual Rules, any opposition must be filed with three business days. SO ORDERED.” The text does not include a ruling on the request for a discovery stay.
Background and Arguments
The letter concerns the plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, which alleges that the plaintiff worked as a hotel bartender for about three weeks and resigned after alleged sexual harassment by supervisor Hilton Willoughby III. The letter identifies NY 24th Street Manager VI LLC, Glam NYC, and HHI as entities allegedly connected to the plaintiff’s employment.
The defendants argued that the complaint did not adequately connect Glam NYC or HHI to Willoughby’s alleged conduct. According to the letter, the complaint alleges that NY 24, and not Glam NYC or HHI, employed Willoughby. It also alleges that Willoughby interviewed, hired, and supervised the plaintiff. The defendants further asserted that the complaint did not allege that Glam NYC or HHI knew about, encouraged, approved, or failed to prevent the alleged harassment. The letter characterized Glam NYC as the entity that processed the plaintiff’s paychecks and said that an HHI principal offered the plaintiff another job only after the plaintiff had resigned.
The defendants argued that their motion to dismiss was potentially dispositive under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. They asked the court to pause discovery as to Glam NYC and HHI while allowing discovery to continue as to Willoughby and NY 24, which had filed answers.
Ruling Shown in the Text
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that any opposition be filed within three business days. The provided text does not state that the court granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the requested discovery stay. It also does not show a ruling on the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.