Rojas v. DP Hospitality Group, LLC
- Katherine Failla
- 1:24-cv-00772
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Rojas v. DP Hospitality Group, Judge Failla set a conference, adjourned a reply deadline, and terminated pending motions without deciding the declaration dispute.
Rojas and the defendants—DP Hospitality Group, LLC, Brooklyn Chophouse Times Square, LLC, David Thomas, Stratis Morfogen, and Robert Cummins—were affected by the scheduling order. The order also directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 48 and 50.
What happened
In Rojas v. DP Hospitality Group, LLC, the plaintiff sought a conference about striking Bianca Wasserman’s declaration, requiring defendants to resubmit their opposition, and awarding attorney fees. Defendants opposed that request, arguing that the plaintiff had notice of Wasserman’s relevant knowledge but chose not to depose her.
The court scheduled a telephone conference for August 7, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. It adjourned the plaintiff’s August 4 reply deadline, leaving the new deadline to be discussed at the conference. The court did not decide whether to strike the declaration or award fees.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 48 and 50. The order addressed scheduling and the pending requests, not the merits of the plaintiff’s partial summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Rojas v. DP Hospitality Group, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-00772
- Katherine Failla
- Aug. 4, 2025
Background
Rojas filed a motion for partial summary judgment concerning his allegations that the defendants misclassified him as exempt and improperly paid him on a salary basis. In opposition, the defendants submitted a declaration from Bianca Wasserman addressing Rojas’s salary, job duties, and authority over employees.
Rojas requested a pre-motion conference concerning an anticipated motion to strike Wasserman’s declaration, require the defendants to submit their opposition again without the declaration, and award attorney fees. The defendants opposed the request. They argued that Rojas had received notice during discovery that Wasserman had relevant information and had chosen not to depose her. The defendants also argued that Rojas had not sought to reopen discovery.
Court’s Action
After reviewing Rojas’s request and the defendants’ response, the court scheduled a telephonic conference for August 7, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The court adjourned Rojas’s August 4 deadline to file his reply brief, stating that the new deadline would be discussed at the conference.
The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 48 and 50. The order did not decide the anticipated motion to strike, the request for attorney fees, or the merits of Rojas’s partial summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.