Charugundla v. Lasala
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-02314
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Charugundla v. Lasala, Judge Subramanian denied a request to pause discovery while motions to dismiss were pending.
Dr. Michael B. First’s request to pause discovery was denied. Plaintiffs KC and MC, along with the codefendants who consented to the request, were affected by the refusal to stay discovery.
What happened
Charugundla v. Lasala concerns KC and MC’s allegations that condominium defendants discriminated against MC by requiring an independent psychiatric evaluation before considering a request for a dog-related accommodation. MC also alleged that Dr. Michael B. First aided the alleged discrimination.
Dr. First asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery while the defendants’ motions to dismiss were pending. He argued that discovery would be expensive and that the motions raised potentially case-ending arguments. The plaintiffs opposed the request, while the codefendants consented.
The court denied the request based on its assessment of the pending motions. Judge Arun Subramanian directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 32.
The detailed version
- Charugundla v. Lasala · No. 1:25-cv-02314
- Subramanian
- July 7, 2025
Background
KC and MC allegedly have lived at the Monarch condominium since April 2000. In 2021, they requested a dog-related accommodation for MC. They submitted a doctor’s note stating that MC had a disability that was not obvious or visible. The condominium defendants retained Dr. Michael B. First, a psychiatrist, to evaluate whether the materials established a disability and whether the requested dog would alleviate symptoms.
The request was denied on or before September 16, 2021, based on the stated insufficiency of the evidence confirming MC’s claimed disability. The opinion states that Dr. First did not reach an opinion and was not otherwise involved in the application process or the Board’s denial.
The plaintiffs asserted claims under the federal Fair Housing Act, New York Civil Rights Law § 47, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. KC asserted claims against the condominium defendants, not Dr. First. MC alleged that Dr. First aided and abetted the alleged violations by agreeing to serve as an outside expert.
The Discovery-Stay Request
Dr. First moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. He argued that the claims were time-barred and that MC had not adequately alleged the underlying discrimination required for an aiding-and-abetting claim. The condominium defendants filed a separate motion to dismiss raising essentially the same arguments.
Dr. First then requested a stay of discovery under Rule 26(c). A discovery stay temporarily pauses the exchange of information and related litigation activity. He argued that good cause existed because discovery would involve substantial costs, including document discovery, depositions, and possible expert work; the dismissal motions could dispose of the case; and delaying discovery at that early stage would cause little prejudice to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs opposed the stay, while the codefendants consented.
Ruling
The court denied the motion. The order states that the denial was based on the court’s assessment of the merits of the pending motions. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 32.
This order addressed whether to pause discovery; it did not state a final ruling on the plaintiffs’ underlying discrimination claims or on the pending motions to dismiss.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.