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 denied defendants’ motion to stay discovery while their dismissal motion was pending.
The ruling directly affected Glam NYC Service Corporation, Hotel Housekeeping Inc., and the plaintiff by refusing to pause discovery as requested against the two corporate defendants.
What happened
In Khalifa v. Willoughby, Glam NYC Service Corporation and Hotel Housekeeping Inc. asked the court to pause discovery while their motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s third amended complaint was pending. They argued that the complaint did not adequately connect them to the alleged sexual harassment and that discovery should proceed only against Hilton Willoughby III and NY 24th Street Manager VI LLC.
The defendants argued that the plaintiff had not alleged facts showing that Glam NYC or Hotel Housekeeping knew about, approved, or failed to prevent the alleged conduct. They also argued that delaying discovery against those entities would cause little prejudice and would reduce expense.
Judge Furman denied the motion to stay discovery and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the related filing. The opinion does not decide the pending motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Khalifa v. Willoughby · No. 1:24-cv-09559
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 18, 2025
Background
The defendants Glam NYC Service Corporation and Hotel Housekeeping Inc., doing business as Hotel Houskeeping Inc. in the motion, asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The request was made while those defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s third amended complaint was pending. The plaintiff had not agreed to the proposed stay.
The third amended complaint alleged that the plaintiff worked as a hotel bartender for about three weeks and resigned after alleged sexual harassment by supervisor Hilton Willoughby III. The motion stated that the complaint identified NY 24th Street Manager VI LLC as Willoughby’s employer and alleged that Willoughby interviewed, hired, and supervised the plaintiff. It also stated that Glam NYC was alleged to have processed the plaintiff’s paychecks and that the complaint did not identify employees of Glam NYC, other than allegedly the plaintiff.
Arguments for a Stay
Glam NYC and Hotel Housekeeping argued that the complaint did not adequately connect either entity to the alleged misconduct. They contended that the New York State Human Rights Law claim lacked allegations that either entity encouraged, approved, or condoned Willoughby’s conduct. They further argued that the New York City Human Rights Law claim lacked allegations that an employee of either entity supervised Willoughby, knew or should have known about the alleged harassment, or failed to use reasonable diligence to prevent it.
The defendants also argued that the motion to dismiss was potentially dispositive and had substantial legal grounds. They asserted that a stay would cause little delay or prejudice because the third amended complaint had recently been filed and would streamline discovery and reduce expense. They proposed that discovery continue against Willoughby and NY 24th Street Manager VI LLC, which had filed answers, while discovery against Glam NYC and Hotel Housekeeping was paused.
Ruling
After considering the relevant factors, Judge Furman denied the motion to stay discovery. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 60. The opinion does not rule on the defendants’ motion to dismiss or decide whether the claims against Glam NYC or Hotel Housekeeping are legally sufficient.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.