Luna v. City of New York
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-02692
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Luna v. City of New York, Judge Parker denied defendants’ request to stay discovery while their motion to dismiss was pending.
The order affects Daniel Luna and the defendants in the case, including the City of New York and New York City Health + Hospitals. Written discovery must proceed, while depositions may be postponed until after the motion to dismiss is decided.
What happened
In Luna v. City of New York, the defendants asked the court to pause discovery and postpone the initial conference until the court ruled on their motion to dismiss. The plaintiff, Daniel Luna, was representing himself and said he had not received the motion papers after changing addresses.
The defendants argued that the complaint failed to state certain employment-discrimination claims, that some state and city claims were barred, and that the City was not a proper defendant. They also said relevant documents were held by New York City Health + Hospitals, whose resources were needed during the coronavirus pandemic.
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied the application to stay discovery. The parties were ordered to proceed with written discovery, although depositions could be postponed until after the court ruled on the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Luna v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-02692
- Valerie Caproni
- Sept. 30, 2020
Background
The defendants City of New York and New York City Health + Hospitals asked the court to stay, or temporarily pause, discovery and postpone the initial conference scheduled for October 22, 2020. Their request was made while their motion to dismiss the complaint was pending.
The defendants’ motion to dismiss argued that the plaintiff had not adequately pleaded a Title VII claim for a gender-based hostile work environment or retaliation. The motion also argued that the election-of-remedies doctrine barred the state and city law claims and that the City of New York was not the plaintiff’s employer and therefore was not a proper party. The letter also stated that Angela Newman and Olsen Montoya had been named as defendants and, upon information and belief, had not been served. The defendants further asserted that individuals could not be held liable under Title VII and that state and city human-rights claims against them would be barred by the election-of-remedies doctrine.
The plaintiff had not yet responded to the motion because, after a recent address change, he had not received the mailed motion papers. He planned to notify the court of his new address and request more time to respond, and the defendants agreed to that extension.
The Court’s ruling
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied the defendants’ application to stay discovery. The court directed the parties to engage in written discovery. It allowed depositions to be postponed until after a ruling on the motion to dismiss.
This order addressed the timing of discovery. It did not rule on the pending motion to dismiss or decide the underlying employment claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.