Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 30, 2025

Febrianti v. NYC Health & Hospitals

Judge
Stewart Aaron
Docket
1:23-cv-06175
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Febrianti v. NYC Health & Hospitals, Judge Aaron set deadlines, stayed City discovery, and approved a case-management plan for NYC Health & Hospitals.

Who this affects

Erica Febrianti, the City of New York, and NYC Health & Hospitals; discovery involving the City is paused while the City's motion to dismiss is pending.

What happened

In Febrianti v. NYC Health & Hospitals and City of New York, only the defendants appeared at an initial conference. The City had filed a motion asking the court to dismiss claims against it, and the motion remained pending.

The court ordered the plaintiff to respond to the City's motion by May 30, 2025, and allowed the City to file a reply by June 13, 2025. It also paused discovery involving the City while the motion was being decided and approved a proposed case-management plan for NYC Health & Hospitals.

Judge Stewart D. Aaron warned the plaintiff that failing to follow court orders or attend conferences could lead to sanctions, including a recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court also said it would mail the order and case-management plan to the plaintiff and reminded her to keep her address current.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Febrianti v. NYC Health & Hospitals · No. 1:23-cv-06175
Judge
Stewart Aaron
Date
Apr. 30, 2025

Background

After an initial pretrial conference at which only Defendants appeared, the court addressed scheduling and case-management matters. Defendant City of New York had filed a motion to dismiss, and the court set deadlines for the parties' written submissions.

Court's Orders

The court ordered Plaintiff to file her opposition to the City's motion to dismiss by May 30, 2025. The City may file a reply by June 13, 2025.

The court stayed, or paused, discovery involving the City until the motion to dismiss is decided. The court found good cause for the stay and relied on its authority to issue a protective order when the record supports one. This order did not decide the City's motion to dismiss.

The court approved the proposed case-management plan as to NYC Health & Hospitals and stated that it would enter the plan separately on the electronic docket.

Warning and Mailing

The court reminded Plaintiff that she must comply with court orders, including orders requiring her to appear at conferences, and must diligently pursue the case. It warned that failing to do so could lead to sanctions, including a recommendation to the District Judge that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

The court noted a filing in Plaintiff's pending interlocutory appeal stating that her new mailing address was 332 Broadway, Staten Island, New York 10310. As a courtesy, Chambers would mail Plaintiff a copy of this order and the case-management plan. The court also reminded her that she is responsible for keeping her address current with the court.

Disposition

The court set briefing deadlines, stayed discovery as to the City pending the motion to dismiss, and approved the proposed case-management plan as to NYC Health & Hospitals. It did not rule on the merits of the case or decide the City's motion to dismiss.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.