Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 14, 2025

Pezhman v. American Arbitration Association

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:25-cv-03946
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Pezhman v. American Arbitration Association, Judge Abrams stayed discovery and set deadlines for an amended complaint and possible dismissal motions.

Who this affects

Anna Pezhman, the American Arbitration Association, and Bloomingdales, Inc.; discovery is paused while the defendants' motions to dismiss are resolved, and the order sets deadlines for the next filings.

What happened

In Pezhman v. American Arbitration Association, Anna Pezhman may file an amended complaint by August 15, 2025. The American Arbitration Association and Bloomingdales, Inc. must answer or respond by September 19, 2025.

The defendants told the Court they intend to file renewed motions to dismiss. If they do, Pezhman may oppose those motions by October 20, 2025, and the defendants may reply by October 31, 2025.

The Court found that pausing discovery while the dismissal motions are resolved is appropriate. Judge Ronnie Abrams also advised Pezhman about electronic service and electronic filing and directed the Clerk to mail her a copy of the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Pezhman v. American Arbitration Association · No. 1:25-cv-03946
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
July 14, 2025

Background

At a July 11, 2025 conference, the Court set a schedule allowing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by August 15, 2025. Defendants must answer or otherwise respond by September 19, 2025. Defendants advised the Court that they intend to file renewed motions to dismiss. If they do so, Plaintiff's opposition is due October 20, 2025, and any reply is due October 31, 2025.

Discovery Stay

Defendants moved to stay, or pause, discovery while their motions to dismiss are pending. The Court considered the strength of the anticipated dispositive motions, the scope and burden of the requested discovery, and possible prejudice to the party opposing the stay. The Court found that a stay is appropriate.

Other Instructions and Disposition

The order pauses discovery pending resolution of Defendants' motions to dismiss. It also advises Plaintiff that she may consent to electronic service and may ask for permission to file documents electronically. The Clerk was directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of the order. The order was signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on July 14, 2025.

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.