Hodges v. McGough et. al.
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-05016
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hodges v. McGough, Judge Roman waived pre-motion requirements and scheduled briefing on Hodges’s proposed Rule 26 and Rule 12 motions.
Hodges and the defendants in the case are affected by the court’s briefing schedule for the proposed Rule 26 and Rule 12 motions.
What happened
In Hodges v. McGough, the pro se plaintiff asked for permission to file motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 12 to challenge the defendants’ counterclaims. The defendants opposed the request and argued that their counterclaims were adequately pleaded.
The opinion text includes the defendants’ arguments about alleged contradictions, time limits, privilege, and anti-lawsuit protections. It does not show that the court decided whether any counterclaim was legally sufficient.
Judge Nelson S. Roman waived the requirement that the parties submit a pre-motion letter and set a schedule for serving and filing the proposed motions and responses. The court did not rule on the motions’ merits.
The detailed version
- Hodges v. McGough et. al. · No. 7:23-cv-05016
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 23, 2025
Background
The pro se plaintiff, Hodges, sought permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a pleading states a legally sufficient claim. The court’s endorsement also refers to a proposed motion under Rule 26, which concerns discovery. The proposed motions would challenge the defendants’ counterclaims in the second amended answer.
The defendants submitted a letter opposing the request. They argued that the counterclaims met the plausibility standard required under Rule 12(b)(6). Their letter addressed alleged inconsistencies in the pleadings, alleged inappropriate advances, privilege, possible time limits, supposedly vague or unsupported allegations, and the plaintiff’s anti-lawsuit argument. The defendants asked that the application be denied in its entirety with prejudice, but that request appears in the defendants’ letter rather than as the court’s ruling.
Court’s Action
After reviewing the parties’ correspondence, Judge Nelson S. Roman waived the pre-motion requirement. The court directed that the Rule 26 and Rule 12 motion be served, but not filed, by December 2, 2025; that opposition be served by January 8, 2026; and that any reply be served by January 27, 2026. The papers were to be filed electronically on January 27, 2026, with additional copies sent to chambers and to the opposing party as specified in the endorsement.
The text does not state that the court granted or denied the proposed motions, dismissed any counterclaim, or decided whether the counterclaims satisfy Rule 12(b)(6).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.