Stein v. Telaria, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-01010
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Stein v. Telaria, Inc., Judge Liman planned to combine related cases, invited objections, and postponed defendants’ response deadline.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the four related cases, including Michael Carter, Shiva Stein, James Lin, Kimberly Robinson, and Telaria, Inc.; defendants’ response deadlines and the parties’ case-management obligations were affected.
What happened
Stein v. Telaria, Inc. is one of four related cases assigned to the same court. The cases involve Michael Carter, Shiva Stein, James Lin, Kimberly Robinson, and Telaria, Inc. and other defendants.
The court said it intended to combine the cases into one action to save time and avoid duplication. It ordered any party objecting to consolidation to file a letter by March 4, 2020, postponed the defendants’ deadlines to answer or seek dismissal, and required the parties to propose a schedule for the next filings.
Judge Lewis J. Liman kept the April 2, 2020 initial pretrial conference on the calendar. The order did not state that consolidation had already been completed; it established a process for objections and further case management.
The detailed version
- Stein v. Telaria, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-01010
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 2, 2020
Background
The court stated that four related cases had been assigned to it: cases brought by Michael Carter, Shiva Stein, James Lin, and Kimberly Robinson against Telaria, Inc. and other defendants. For convenience, speed, and judicial economy, the court said it intended to consolidate the cases. Consolidation means combining related cases into a single action for joint proceedings.
Orders
The court ordered that any party objecting to consolidation file a letter on the electronic filing system, no longer than two pages, by March 4, 2020, at 5:00 p.m.
The court also adjourned, meaning postponed, the deadline for defendants to answer or move to dismiss any complaint. That deadline would remain postponed until the court issued another order.
In place of the previously ordered case-management plan and scheduling order, the court directed the parties to confer and submit a proposed plan and schedule addressing motions for appointment of a lead plaintiff, a consolidated amended complaint, and briefing on an anticipated motion to dismiss that complaint. The court stated that the initial pretrial conference scheduled for April 2, 2020, would proceed as scheduled.
Disposition
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the objection process, postponed defendants’ response deadline, and required a proposed case-management schedule. The order stated that the court intended to consolidate the cases but did not state that consolidation had already been completed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.