Samuel v. City Of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-02404
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Samuel v. City of New York: Judge Woods granted defendants’ requests to file dismissal motions and stayed discovery while those motions are resolved.
Jimmy Samuel and the defendants—City of New York, The New York and Presbyterian Hospital, and the identified John Doe employees—were affected by the motion deadlines and the stay of discovery.
What happened
In Samuel v. City of New York, the defendants asked for permission to file motions seeking dismissal of the case. The order does not describe the underlying claims.
Judge Woods set deadlines for the motions and responses: defendants’ motions were due May 6, 2022; Samuel’s oppositions were due within 21 days after service; and any replies were due within seven days after the oppositions.
Judge Woods granted the defendants’ requests to file motions to dismiss and stayed discovery while the motions were briefed and resolved. The order did not decide whether Samuel’s claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Samuel v. City Of New York · No. 1:22-cv-02404
- Gregory Woods
- Apr. 22, 2022
What the order addressed
The defendants requested permission to file motions to dismiss. A motion to dismiss asks the court to end some or all of a case based on the pleadings and applicable law. The order does not identify the legal claims or provide facts about the events underlying the case.
Deadlines
The court granted the defendants’ requests to file motions to dismiss. The motions were due no later than May 6, 2022. Samuel’s opposition was due within 21 days after the defendants served their motion. Any defendant reply was due within seven days after service of Samuel’s opposition.
Discovery stay
The court also stayed discovery while the defendants’ motions to dismiss were being briefed and resolved. Discovery is the process through which parties obtain information and documents relevant to the case. The court explained that filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery, but that a court may stay discovery for good cause. It found good cause here, including because of the nature of the defendants’ arguments that Samuel’s claims were unmeritorious.
Ruling and effect
The order granted the defendants’ requests to file motions to dismiss and stayed discovery pending briefing and resolution of those motions. It did not rule on the merits of Samuel’s claims or decide the motions to dismiss themselves.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.