Pillai v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
- Barbara Moses
- 1:25-cv-03836
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Pillai v. Charles Schwab, Judge Moses denied Pillai’s motion to strike Schwab’s dismissal motion and treated it as her opposition.
Sarah Elizabeth Pillai and Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.; the order also governs the parties’ pretrial and discovery procedures.
What happened
Sarah Elizabeth Pillai sued Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, and settlement, while Schwab’s motion to dismiss remained pending.
Pillai filed a motion asking the court to strike Schwab’s motion to dismiss. The court denied that request because the rule she cited applies to pleadings, and a motion to dismiss is not a pleading. Because Pillai was representing herself, the court treated her filing instead as her written opposition to Schwab’s motion.
Judge Moses also set procedures for discovery, other motions, deadline extensions, and court conferences. The court ordered that Schwab’s optional reply to Pillai’s opposition was due June 24, 2025; it did not decide Schwab’s motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Pillai v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-03836
- Barbara Moses
- June 18, 2025
Background
Sarah Elizabeth Pillai brought this action against Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement. The referral also covered reports and recommendations on any dispositive motions, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B).
Schwab responded to the complaint with a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The opinion does not decide that motion.
Court’s procedures
The order instructed the parties to direct pretrial motions and applications to Judge Moses and to follow her individual practices. It addressed discovery deadlines and discovery-dispute procedures, requests to extend deadlines or adjourn proceedings, optional pre-motion conferences for non-discovery motions, and page limits and courtesy copies for letters and letter-motions.
The order also identified a free legal clinic that may assist people representing themselves in civil cases. The opinion states that Pillai was representing herself.
Motion to strike
Pillai filed a document titled “Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(f).” To the extent she asked the court to remove Schwab’s motion to dismiss from the record, the court denied her motion. The court explained that Rule 12(f) applies only to pleadings and that a motion to dismiss is not a pleading.
Because of Pillai’s status as a self-represented party, the court construed her filing as her memorandum opposing Schwab’s motion to dismiss. The court stated that Schwab’s optional reply brief was due June 24, 2025.
Disposition
The court denied Pillai’s motion to strike to the extent it sought removal of Schwab’s motion to dismiss. The order did not rule on the merits of Schwab’s motion to dismiss or on the claims in the complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.