Higgins v. 120 Riverside Boulevard at Trump Place Condominium
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-04203
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Higgins v. 120 Riverside Boulevard, Judge Liman approved a briefing schedule and required a narrower discovery-stay request from the sellers.
Joanne Noel Higgins and defendants Carlos A. Galliani and Nancy Galliani were affected by the scheduling and discovery directions. The order also set deadlines for the sellers’ anticipated motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
What happened
In Higgins v. 120 Riverside Boulevard at Trump Place Condominium, the sellers—Carlos A. Galliani and Nancy Galliani—asked the court to pause all discovery while they sought dismissal of Joanne Noel Higgins’s amended complaint. Their planned motion targeted Higgins’s fraudulent-inducement claim based on alleged statements about leaks and a structural defect.
The sellers argued that discovery would be broad, expensive, and involve medical records, experts, and third parties. They also argued that a short delay would not prejudice Higgins and that the claim had substantial weaknesses. The text provided does not show that the court granted or denied the request to pause discovery.
Judge Lewis J. Liman approved the proposed schedule for the sellers’ motion to dismiss: filing by October 22, 2021, opposition by November 19, and reply by December 3. The court also indicated that the sellers should make a narrower request identifying the specific discovery that should be paused and the reasons for pausing it.
The detailed version
- Higgins v. 120 Riverside Boulevard at Trump Place Condominium · No. 1:21-cv-04203
- Lewis Liman
- Oct. 19, 2021
Background
The provided text consists primarily of a letter-motion from defendants Carlos A. Galliani and Nancy Galliani, identified as the sellers, and a proposed briefing schedule. The sellers sought a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) staying all discovery until the court decided their anticipated motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The amended complaint asserted one claim against the sellers: fraudulent inducement based on alleged misrepresentations made to induce Higgins to purchase the premises.
Arguments in the Letter-Motion
The sellers argued that discovery would be burdensome because it could cover approximately five years, involve communications between the condominium and Higgins, concern alleged physical and emotional injuries and preexisting medical conditions, require expert discovery about a structural defect, and involve third parties. They argued that a stay would simplify discovery if the motion to dismiss succeeded.
The sellers also argued that Higgins would not be prejudiced by a short delay because discovery demands had not yet been served. They further asserted that the fraudulent-inducement claim was deficient because the contract disclaimed reliance on statements outside the contract, a contract provision concerning leaks was not an actionable statement of present fact, Higgins had observed water staining, and the alleged statements were not the proximate cause of her damages.
Court Action
The court’s endorsement states that Higgins represented that the scope of discovery against the sellers was limited, while directing the sellers to make a narrower request identifying the specific types of discovery they sought to pause and the basis for doing so. The court approved the proposed briefing schedule for the sellers’ motion to dismiss: the motion was due October 22, 2021; any opposition was due November 19, 2021; and the reply was due December 3, 2021.
The text provided does not state that the court granted or denied the sellers’ request to stay discovery, and it does not decide the merits of the fraudulent-inducement claim. The ruling shown is an ancillary discovery-related order approving the briefing schedule and requiring a narrower stay request.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.