Rothman v. Hasz Project Management and Design and Suzanne Hasz

Background

The defendants submitted a letter responding to Loren Rothman’s proposed case-management plan. They represented that Rothman’s counsel had indicated Rothman no longer wished to amend the complaint. The defendants argued that a case-management plan was therefore premature because they intended to renew a request to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).

Rule 12(c) permits a party to seek judgment based on the pleadings. The defendants said their proposed motion would rely on releases that Rothman had acknowledged in paragraphs 192 and 203 of a response to the defendants’ answer and counterclaim. They argued that the releases were complete defenses to Rothman’s claims under New York law. The defendants also stated that this issue had not been included in their earlier Rule 12(b)(6) motion because Rothman had not yet acknowledged the authenticity and accuracy of the releases.

The defendants asked for additional time to file a case-management plan and for permission to file the proposed Rule 12(c) motion. The letter also referred to Rothman’s earlier statement that an amended complaint would allege that the releases were induced by fraud. The defendants said they had expected to review those allegations before deciding whether another pleading motion was necessary.

Court’s directives

The opinion states that, under the court’s October 9, 2025 endorsement, Rothman had leave to file an amended complaint by November 12, 2025. To the extent Rothman files an amended complaint, the defendants were granted leave to respond by December 3, 2025.

The court established the following schedule for any appropriate motion to dismiss the amended complaint: the defendants must serve their moving papers on January 20, 2026; Rothman must serve opposition papers on February 9, 2026; and the defendants must serve reply papers on February 24, 2026. The parties must file all motion papers on February 24, 2026, and provide the court with the specified physical and electronic courtesy copies.

The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the letter motion at ECF No. 34. The text does not state that the court granted or denied the defendants’ requested Rule 12(c) motion, and it does not decide whether the releases bar Rothman’s claims. Judge Nelson S. Roman’s order therefore addressed the case schedule and potential future motion practice, not the merits of the underlying claims.