Enhanced US LLC v. World Aquatics, et al.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-07096
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Enhanced US LLC v. World Aquatics, Judge Furman adjourned the initial pretrial conference to November 25, 2025, while reserving judgment on pending motions.
Enhanced US LLC and Defendants were affected by the rescheduled initial pretrial conference and the new November 20, 2025 deadline for preconference materials. The pending motions to dismiss were not decided.
What happened
Enhanced US LLC opposed Defendants’ request to postpone the November 19, 2025 initial pretrial conference. Enhanced argued that the parties had already met to plan discovery and that postponement would improperly delay discovery because Defendants had filed motions to dismiss.
The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference to November 25, 2025, at 10 a.m. The deadline for filing materials before the conference therefore became November 20, 2025. The order did not decide the pending motions to dismiss.
Judge Furman stated that the parties should not interpret the postponement as showing how the court views those motions, and he reserved judgment on them. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 97.
The detailed version
- Enhanced US LLC v. World Aquatics, et al. · No. 1:25-cv-07096
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 7, 2025
Background
Enhanced US LLC’s counsel submitted a letter opposing Defendants’ request to postpone the initial pretrial conference scheduled for November 19, 2025. Enhanced argued that the parties had already held the required conference to plan discovery, that discovery had begun, and that Defendants’ request was effectively an attempt to pause discovery while their motions to dismiss were pending.
Enhanced also argued that Defendants had not filed a formal motion or shown the required justification for staying discovery. The letter asked the court to keep the November 19 conference and related filing deadlines in place.
Court’s Action
The court ordered that the initial pretrial conference be adjourned to November 25, 2025, at 10 a.m. The parties’ deadline to file materials before the conference was changed to November 20, 2025.
The order did not rule on Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss. Judge Jesse M. Furman stated that the parties should not infer the court’s views about those motions from the adjournment and that the court reserved judgment on them. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 97.
Classification
This is a procedural scheduling order. It changed the date of the initial pretrial conference and related deadline without deciding the underlying claims or the pending motions to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.