The Abramson Law Group v. Cardea Capital Group
The Abramson Law Group, PLLC v. Cardea Capital Group, Inc., Cardea Corporate Holdings, Inc. and Cardea Holdings USA, LLC
- Analisa Torres
- 1:24-cv-05750
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Abramson Law Group v. Cardea Capital, Judge Torres stayed post-judgment discovery because the defendants’ appeal removed the case from the district court’s jurisdiction.
The Abramson Law Group, PLLC and the defendants are affected because post-judgment discovery is stayed while the defendants’ appeal is pending.
What happened
In The Abramson Law Group, PLLC v. Cardea Capital Group, Inc., and related defendants, the plaintiff asked the court to address a dispute about discovery after judgment. The defendants had appealed an earlier order.
That earlier order dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against Cardea Capital Advisor for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied the defendants’ request to set aside a default judgment against the other three defendants.
Judge Analisa Torres ruled that the appeal removed the district court’s authority to act on the case. She therefore stayed post-judgment discovery while the appeal is pending.
The detailed version
- The Abramson Law Group v. Cardea Capital Group · No. 1:24-cv-05750
- Analisa Torres
- Oct. 6, 2025
Background
The court received The Abramson Law Group, PLLC’s September 26, 2025 letter about a post-judgment discovery dispute. The opinion states that the defendants had appealed the court’s September 9, 2025 order.
That earlier order dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against Cardea Capital Advisor for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied the defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment as to the remaining three defendants. The opinion also states that a default had been entered.
Ruling
The court explained that a default judgment and a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may be appealed. Because the defendants had appealed, the district court was no longer authorized to act on the matter. The court therefore ordered that post-judgment discovery be stayed pending the defendants’ appeal.
Effect of the Order
This order pauses post-judgment discovery while the appeal is pending. It does not decide the underlying claims or the appeal.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.