Medina v. City Of New York

Background

Tomas Medina sued the City of New York and named city and New York City Police Department officials and officers. He asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, along with related federal and state-law claims. The complaint alleges that, on July 14, 2018, officers Fabio Nunez and Shanee (Pierce) Hansler confronted Medina and a companion outside the El Mundo Car Dealership in Washington Heights. Medina alleges that Nunez placed him in a chokehold and used a taser on him thirteen times. He also alleges that false criminal charges were filed against him. The opinion states that the felony assault charges were dismissed and that Medina later consented to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal of the misdemeanor charges.

The complaint also asserts a municipal-liability claim, known as a Monell claim, alleging that the City maintained a policy or practice of subjecting people to excessive force, including chokeholds and excessive taser use. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief.

Motions at Issue

Some defendants moved to dismiss claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claims against certain police officials and supervisors, the Monell claim against the City, false-arrest and improper-search claims, and intentional- and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims. Nunez separately moved to dismiss false-arrest and state-law claims against him. The opinion notes that Nunez did not move to dismiss the excessive-force and abuse-of-process claims against him.

Defendants also moved to stay the action—that is, pause the case—while the partial motions to dismiss were pending. The stay motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery and that a stay generally requires good cause. Courts generally find good cause only when defendants make a strong showing that a motion to dismiss the case in its entirety is likely to succeed.

The court found no such showing here. Defendants had filed only partial motions to dismiss and did not argue that even those motions were likely to succeed. Several claims involving officers alleged to have been directly involved in the events would remain even if the dismissal motion were entirely successful. Claims against the City for negligent retention and promotion of Nunez also were not among the claims targeted by the dismissal motion.

The court rejected defendants’ argument that discovery should be delayed because it might become burdensome or because the parties might have to file answers in stages. It explained that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure already extend a moving defendant’s deadline to answer until fourteen days after the court rules on the motion to dismiss. The court also noted that defendants did not identify any efforts to meet and confer about discovery or propose an alternative way to conduct discovery on claims unaffected by the pending motions.

Disposition

Judge Wang denied defendants’ motion for a stay. She directed defendants to consult Judge Alison Nathan’s Individual Rules and Practices for discovery procedures and directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF 65. The order addressed only the request to pause the case; it did not rule on the pending motions to dismiss or decide the merits of Medina’s claims.