Dwulit v. Deer Management Systems LLC
- Rearden
- 1:25-cv-05925
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Dwulit v. Deer Management Systems, Judge Rearden granted an application and withdrew the mediation referral, subject to further court order.
Dwulit, Deer Management Systems LLC, and Tactacam LLC. The mediation referral is withdrawn, and the parties must discuss protections for the defendants’ personal-jurisdiction objections and any possible extension of the response deadline.
What happened
In Dwulit v. Deer Management Systems LLC, Deer Management Systems LLC and Tactacam LLC asked the court to withdraw or pause an automatic referral to mediation. They said no answer had been filed and argued that mediation was premature, while also raising personal-jurisdiction and other defenses they expected to present in a motion.
The defendants also described two earlier lawsuits involving the same allegations, both of which were dismissed for improper service. They proposed limited mediation if participating would not waive their objections, filing deadlines were paused, and additional filings were restricted. The order did not decide the defendants’ jurisdiction, arbitration, sanctions, or other arguments.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden granted the application and withdrew the referral to the court-annexed mediation program, subject to further order. She directed the parties to discuss whether to file an agreement protecting the defendants’ personal-jurisdiction objections and allowed them to seek, by consent, an extension of the defendants’ response deadline if mediation failed.
The detailed version
- Dwulit v. Deer Management Systems LLC · No. 1:25-cv-05925
- Rearden
- Aug. 14, 2025
Background
The court had automatically referred the case to its court-annexed mediation program under ECF No. 11. Deer Management Systems LLC and Tactacam LLC, through counsel, asked the court to withdraw that referral for the time being or hold it in abeyance. They argued that the referral was premature because neither defendant had filed an answer, and they described prior litigation involving the same allegations that had ended in dismissals based on improper service.
The defendants also asserted that their expected motion would raise personal-jurisdiction and failure-to-state-a-claim defenses. They proposed a limited mediation process before an answer, without mediation statements or discovery, if the court protected them against waiver or forfeiture of their personal-jurisdiction objections and paused filing deadlines. These were the defendants’ positions; the order did not resolve those defenses or the parties’ separate arbitration and sanctions issues.
Ruling
The court stated: “Application GRANTED.” It withdrew the referral to the court-annexed Mediation Program under ECF No. 11, subject to further order of the court.
The parties were directed to meet and confer about whether they could stipulate that the defendants’ participation in mediation would not constitute a general appearance or cause waiver or forfeiture of their personal-jurisdiction objections. If they reached an agreement, they were directed to file it by August 22, 2025. Because that date was also the defendants’ deadline to respond to the complaint, the court said it would consider a joint request to extend that deadline until 21 days after mediation concluded if mediation was unsuccessful. If the parties could not agree by August 22, the plaintiff was directed to file a letter with supporting legal authorities. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 12.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.