Allen v. Citigroup Global Markets Holdings, Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-02387
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Allen v. Citigroup, Judge Carter denied Citigroup’s motion and ordered the parties to propose an expedited schedule for dismissal briefing.
Thomas P. Allen and Citigroup Global Market Holdings Inc.; the parties must propose an expedited briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Allen v. Citigroup Global Market Holdings Inc., Thomas P. Allen sued Citigroup Global Market Holdings Inc. The order says the case involved facts and claims similar to two other cases the court had recently addressed.
The court denied the defendant’s motion. The order does not identify the motion’s specific arguments or explain the claims in detail.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. directed the parties to submit a proposed expedited schedule for briefing on a future motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The clerk was also directed to terminate ECF No. 16.
The detailed version
- Allen v. Citigroup Global Markets Holdings, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-02387
- Andrew Carter
- July 19, 2022
Background
Thomas P. Allen brought this action against Citigroup Global Market Holdings Inc. The order provides little factual or legal background. It states that the court had recently issued opinions in Jacobson v. Citigroup Glob. Mkt. Holdings Inc., No. 21-cv-2384 (ALC), and Zellner v. Citigroup Glob. Mkt. Holdings Inc., No. 21-CV-2413 (ALC), involving similar facts and claims.
Ruling
The court denied the defendant’s motion. The opinion does not specify what motion the defendant filed or give the reasons supporting it beyond referring to the court’s recent opinions.
The parties were directed to write to the court with a proposed expedited briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 16.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it denies an unspecified motion and sets a schedule for further briefing without deciding the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.