Santamaria v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-10795
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Santamaria v. Hilton Worldwide, Judge Caproni partly granted Santamaria’s scheduling request but did not decide dismissal or transfer.
The plaintiff received additional time to respond to the defendants’ motion. The defendants received a deadline for any reply, and the scheduled pretrial conference was postponed indefinitely. The dismissal and transfer requests remained undecided.
What happened
In Santamaria v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc., the plaintiff asked for more time to respond to the defendants’ motion seeking dismissal and transfer of the case to another federal court. The defendants agreed to the request.
The court granted the request in part. The plaintiff’s response was due January 10, 2020, and any defendants’ reply was due January 17, 2020. The court also postponed the scheduled pretrial conference indefinitely.
Judge Valerie Caproni warned that if the plaintiff again missed the response deadline, the court would consider the dismissal motion without the plaintiff’s opposition. The order did not decide the defendants’ requests for dismissal or transfer.
The detailed version
- Santamaria v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10795
- Valerie Caproni
- Dec. 20, 2019
Background
The plaintiff requested an adjournment, meaning additional time, concerning the defendants’ pending motion for an order dismissing the case and transferring it to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The request also sought to postpone the initial conference. Defense counsel consented.
The filing refers to an earlier motion filed on November 27, 2019. It also refers to a deficient stipulation of dismissal and an opposition to dismissal unless the plaintiff could later refile, but the order did not resolve those issues.
Court’s Order
The court granted the request in part. The plaintiff’s response to the defendants’ motion was due no later than January 10, 2020. Any defendants’ reply was due no later than January 17, 2020.
The court stated that if the plaintiff again failed to meet the deadline, it would evaluate the motion to dismiss as unopposed. The pretrial conference then scheduled for January 3, 2020, was adjourned indefinitely. The court encouraged the parties to resolve whether the case would be voluntarily dismissed and whether any dismissal would permit refiling.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni did not rule on the defendants’ motion to dismiss or request to transfer venue. This order addressed scheduling and deadlines only. The classification is procedural because the court granted part of an ancillary scheduling request without deciding the underlying dismissal or transfer issues.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.