Melvin v. City of New York
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-04118
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Melvin v. City of New York, Judge Abrams granted the application and continued the discovery stay while a dismissal motion remains pending.
Rodney Melvin and the defendants represented by the New York City Law Department; discovery in the case remains paused while the motion to dismiss the amended complaint is pending.
What happened
In Rodney Melvin v. City of New York, the defendants asked the court to continue, or impose a new, pause on evidence gathering while their motion to dismiss Melvin’s amended complaint was pending. Melvin, who was representing himself, had asked for permission to serve a limited set of requests for admission.
The defendants argued that their dismissal motion had substantial grounds, that discovery could be burdensome, and that delaying discovery would not significantly harm Melvin. They also argued that the proposed requests would not establish the intent needed for Melvin’s equal-protection claim concerning the denial of his contractor license application.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the application. Discovery remains stayed until the court resolves the pending motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Melvin v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-04118
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 18, 2025
Background
The court had previously stayed discovery in the case. After the court dismissed Melvin’s original complaint and allowed him to file an amended complaint, Melvin filed an amended complaint. The defendants then moved to dismiss that amended complaint, and that motion was pending when Melvin asked for permission to serve a limited set of requests for admission.
Melvin’s case challenges the New York City Department of Buildings’ initial denial of his application for a Master Fire Suppression Piping Contractor Class B license. The amended complaint alleges that the initial denial violated his right to equal protection under a “class-of-one” theory. The defendants argued that the claim failed because Melvin did not allege that he was intentionally treated differently from similarly situated people.
Arguments About Discovery
The defendants asked the court to maintain the existing discovery stay, or to impose a new stay, until the court decided their motion to dismiss. They argued that the motion had substantial grounds, that discovery could be broad and burdensome, and that a stay would not significantly prejudice Melvin. They also argued that Melvin’s proposed requests for admission would not establish the required intent or show that the license denial was not based on a mistake.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the application. The order states that discovery in the action remains stayed pending the court’s resolution of the pending motion to dismiss. The order did not separately explain the court’s reasoning beyond granting the application and continuing the stay.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.