Winston & Strawn LLP v. Mid-Atlantic Arena, LLC
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:18-cv-11430
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Winston & Strawn v. Mid-Atlantic Arena, Judge McMahon restarted the case, resumed discovery, and set deadlines after related litigation ended.
Winston & Strawn LLP, Mid-Atlantic Arena, LLC, and ESG Enterprises, Inc.; the order restarted the case and set deadlines for the parties.
What happened
Winston & Strawn LLP v. Mid-Atlantic Arena, LLC and ESG Enterprises, Inc. had been paused while related litigation in Virginia Beach proceeded. That litigation ended after the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed a decision against Mid-Atlantic Arena, but it did not resolve this case, and the parties did not settle.
The parties agreed to restart this case. The court ordered discovery to resume, directed that an initial pretrial conference date be set separately, and required the defendants to answer or otherwise respond by February 19, 2021. If the defendants filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the case under Rule 12, Winston & Strawn’s opposition would be due March 19, 2021.
Judge Colleen McMahon entered the consent order. The order set the case schedule and did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Winston & Strawn LLP v. Mid-Atlantic Arena, LLC · No. 1:18-cv-11430
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 28, 2021
Background
Mid-Atlantic Arena, LLC had filed related litigation in the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach on January 16, 2018. The parties had previously reached an agreement in principle concerning this federal case that depended on the outcome of that litigation. On April 8, 2019, the court placed this case on hold until the trial and any post-trial proceedings in the Virginia Beach litigation were completed.
The opinion states that the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the decision in the Virginia Beach litigation on May 28, 2020, in favor of the city of Virginia Beach and against Mid-Atlantic Arena. The resolution of that litigation did not resolve the issues in this federal case, and the parties did not reach a settlement afterward.
Order
The parties jointly requested, and the court entered, a consent order re-commencing the action and setting a case schedule. The court ordered that the case be re-commenced and that discovery resume in full. It also ordered that the date for an initial pretrial conference be set by a separate order.
The defendants’ deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint was February 19, 2021. If the defendants filed a motion under Rule 12, which includes certain requests to dismiss a case at an early stage, Winston & Strawn’s opposition was due March 19, 2021.
What the Order Did Not Decide
This order addressed the case’s status and schedule. It did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses. The opinion does not state what those claims or defenses are.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.