Caplan v. Dollinger
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-07996
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Caplan v. Dollinger, Judge Furman stayed discovery while preliminary-injunction and dismissal motions remained under advisement.
The parties to Caplan v. Dollinger are affected because discovery is stayed pending further order of the court.
What happened
In Caplan v. Dollinger, the plaintiffs asked the court to rule on their request for temporary emergency relief, a preliminary injunction, and an attachment, and to approve a proposed case-management plan. The defendants had appeared, opposed the request, and filed a motion to dismiss.
The parties had completed briefing on the preliminary-relief request and held a conference about managing the case. The defendants intended to ask that discovery stop while their motion to dismiss was pending, while the plaintiffs asked the court to allow the case to move forward.
Judge Jesse M. Furman said the motions for a preliminary injunction and to dismiss were still under review and that the court expected to rule soon. Without expressing a view on either motion's merits, he ordered discovery stayed until further court order and directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 85.
The detailed version
- Caplan v. Dollinger · No. 1:24-cv-07996
- Jesse Furman
- June 6, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs' June 4, 2025 letter asked the court to rule on their November 4, 2024 request for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and attachment. They also asked the court to approve a proposed civil case-management plan and scheduling order.
The letter stated that the plaintiffs had bought 650,000 shares of Veg House Holdings Inc. from PlantX Life Inc. under January 2024 share-purchase agreements. According to the letter, the agreements required PlantX to repurchase the shares for $650,000 if Veg failed to list on Nasdaq by May 2024. The plaintiffs said they had not received the promised refunds and filed the action after delays and excuses.
The plaintiffs also asserted that the defendants had delayed appearing and opposing the request for preliminary relief. They said discovery requests served in April 2025 were met with objections based on the parties' alleged failure to hold a conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The parties then held that conference on June 2, 2025 and agreed to a proposed case-management plan. The defendants indicated that they intended to seek a complete discovery stay while their motion to dismiss was pending.
Court's Action
The court stated that the motions for a preliminary injunction and to dismiss were under advisement, meaning the court was still considering them. The court said it expected to rule on those motions in the near future. It did not decide either motion in this order and expressly stated that the discovery stay did not indicate a view on either motion's merits.
The court agreed with the defendants that discovery should not proceed. It ordered discovery stayed pending further order of the court and directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 85.
Effect of the Order
Discovery is paused for the parties until the court issues another order. The opinion text does not state how the court will rule on the preliminary-injunction motion, the motion to dismiss, or the proposed case-management plan.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.