Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 7, 2022

Rich v. State of New York

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:21-cv-03835
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro SeDiscovery
In one sentence

In Rich v. State of New York, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein granted the application, deemed the dismissal motion withdrawn, found the discovery-stay request moot, and terminated three defendants.

Who this affects

The ruling affected Benjamin Samuel Rich, the terminated defendants Shipla Kalra, David Nasar, and the New York County District Attorney’s Office, the parties involved in the telephone conference, and the deadline for filing the plan.

What happened

In Rich v. State of New York, Benjamin Samuel Rich, representing himself, said he agreed to dismiss the District Attorney defendants based on the immunity arguments cited by the defendants. He also said this resolved the motion to dismiss and made the request to pause discovery unnecessary.

The court granted Rich’s application and deemed Docket No. 63’s motion to dismiss withdrawn. It ruled that the application to stay discovery was moot and directed the Clerk to terminate Shipla Kalra, David Nasar, and the New York County District Attorney’s Office as defendants.

Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein also ordered a telephone conference by July 14, 2022, and extended the deadline for filing the plan to July 21, 2022.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rich v. State of New York · No. 1:21-cv-03835
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
July 7, 2022

Background

Benjamin Samuel Rich, the plaintiff, was representing himself. He wrote that he had reviewed the immunity arguments cited by the Office of the New York County District Attorney and had no objection to an order dismissing all District Attorney defendants from the civil case based on the allegations in his First Amended Complaint. The opinion does not decide whether those immunity arguments were correct.

Rich’s filing addressed two docket entries: a motion to dismiss filed as Docket No. 63 and an application to stay discovery. His filing referred to the discovery application as Docket No. 72, while the court’s order referred to it as Docket No. 71.

Ruling

The court granted Rich’s application. It deemed Docket No. 63’s motion to dismiss withdrawn and ruled that the application to stay discovery was moot, meaning that the court no longer needed to decide it. The Clerk was directed to terminate Shipla Kalra, David Nasar, and the New York County District Attorney’s Office as defendants.

Separately, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein directed the parties to hold the telephone call previously ordered in Docket No. 68 by July 14, 2022. The deadline for filing the plan was extended to July 21, 2022.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.