Ruilova v. 443 Lexington Ave, Inc.
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-05205
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ruilova v. 443 Lexington Ave., Judge Nathan stayed some discovery, denied a discovery-compulsion motion, and denied conditional certification without prejudice.
The ruling affected Andres Ruilova and the other plaintiffs, and the defendants other than 443 Lexington Ave., Inc. and Steve Difillippo. Discovery involving 443 Lexington Ave., Inc. and Steve Difillippo could proceed, while discovery involving the other defendants was partially stayed.
What happened
Andres Ruilova and other plaintiffs sued 443 Lexington Ave., Inc. and other defendants. The defendants asked to pause discovery involving defendants other than 443 Lexington Ave., Inc. and Steve Difillippo while the court considered their challenge to personal jurisdiction.
The court found substantial arguments about whether it had general or specific jurisdiction over the non-New York defendants. It also found that the requested discovery was broad and that the defendants could be burdened if the jurisdiction motion succeeded, while discovery involving 443 Lexington Ave., Inc. and Steve Difillippo could continue.
Judge Alison J. Nathan granted the defendants’ motion for a partial stay of discovery, denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery from the affected defendants, and denied the pending motion for conditional certification without prejudice to renewal after the personal-jurisdiction issue is resolved.
The detailed version
- Ruilova v. 443 Lexington Ave, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-05205
- Alison Nathan
- Mar. 20, 2020
Background
The defendants filed a partial motion to stay discovery involving all defendants except 443 Lexington Ave., Inc. and Steve Difillippo. They sought the stay while the court considered their motion to dismiss those defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs opposed the stay and sought to compel discovery. A separate motion for conditional certification was also pending.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a motion to dismiss ordinarily does not automatically stop discovery, but that a pending motion may provide good cause for a stay depending on the circumstances. Courts consider the breadth of the requested discovery, the burden of responding, the prejudice to the opposing party, and the strength of the motion supporting the requested stay.
The court found that the defendants had made substantial arguments for dismissal. It rejected the plaintiffs’ suggestion that the jurisdiction motion was untimely, explaining that a defendant may make a later motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction if the defense was not forfeited. The defendants appeared to have preserved their personal-jurisdiction arguments in their answer, and the case remained in its early stages. The court also found substantial arguments about whether general or specific jurisdiction existed over the non-New York defendants.
The court further found that the requested discovery was broad and that the defendants would be prejudiced by responding if the motion to dismiss were granted. The court noted that discovery involving 443 Lexington Ave., Inc. and Steve Difillippo could continue even during a partial stay, reducing the potential prejudice to the plaintiffs. The opinion refers to discovery involving the Massachusetts and Pennsylvania defendants but does not identify those defendants by name.
Rulings
The court granted the defendants’ motion for a partial stay of discovery. It denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery from the affected defendants. The court also denied the motion for conditional certification without prejudice to renewal after the personal-jurisdiction issue was resolved. The court stated that the personal-jurisdiction ruling was likely to affect the nature and scope of any conditional certification. The order resolved Docket Nos. 54, 70, and 73.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.