Florence Rostami Law LLC v. Mitsuiya Industries Co., Ltd.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-01490
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Florence Rostami Law LLC v. Mitsuiya Industries, Judge Woods denied without prejudice Mitsuiya’s request to pause discovery while its dismissal motion remains pending.
Mitsuiya Industries Co., Ltd.’s request to pause discovery was denied without prejudice; Florence Rostami Law LLC opposed the request.
What happened
Florence Rostami Law LLC sued Mitsuiya Industries, Co. Ltd. in the Southern District of New York. Mitsuiya asked the court to pause discovery while it considered Mitsuiya’s motion to dismiss.
Mitsuiya’s motion argues that New York courts lack jurisdiction over it and, alternatively, that Japan is a more suitable forum. Mitsuiya said discovery would be burdensome, while Florence Rostami Law LLC opposed the request.
The court denied the request to pause discovery without prejudice. Judge Woods directed Mitsuiya to follow the court’s pre-motion submission rule and address the proposed discovery pause at the April 28, 2025 pretrial conference.
The detailed version
- Florence Rostami Law LLC v. Mitsuiya Industries Co., Ltd. · No. 1:25-cv-01490
- Gregory Woods
- Apr. 22, 2025
Background
Florence Rostami Law LLC sued Mitsuiya Industries Co., Ltd. in the Southern District of New York. Mitsuiya had filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 and on forum non conveniens grounds. Forum non conveniens is a doctrine that can allow dismissal when another forum is more suitable for the dispute.
Mitsuiya’s motion argues that New York courts do not have jurisdiction over Mitsuiya. In the alternative, it argues that the courts of Japan are a more suitable forum. Mitsuiya asked the court to stay, or temporarily pause, discovery until the court decided those issues. Mitsuiya stated that discovery would be unduly burdensome because it is a Japanese corporation headquartered in Japan and has no operations, personnel, or employees in the United States. Florence Rostami Law LLC opposed the proposed stay.
Ruling
The court denied Mitsuiya’s proposed motion to stay discovery without prejudice. The court directed Mitsuiya to comply with the court’s Individual Rule 2(F), which concerns pre-motion submissions, and to address the proposed discovery stay at the pretrial conference scheduled for April 28, 2025. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion, listed as docket entry 38.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.