Shamilov v. City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-10224
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Shamilov v. City of New York, defendants asked to pause discovery and postpone a conference; no ruling appears, and Judge Swain’s action is unclear.
The plaintiff, Aleksandr Shamilov, and the City of New York and individually named defendants served in the action.
What happened
In Shamilov v. City of New York, the City of New York and served individual defendants asked the court to pause discovery while their planned motion to dismiss was pending. They also asked to postpone an upcoming initial conference until the motion process ended.
The defendants argued that the amended complaint did not adequately allege discrimination, a hostile work environment, or retaliation. They also asserted that some claims were legally defective, that the complaint named individual defendants without enough allegations against them, and that its nearly 80-page statement of facts did not comply with the federal pleading rules. The letter states that the plaintiff was representing himself.
The provided materials do not contain a court ruling on the request, so no disposition is reported. The case metadata identifies Judge Laura Swain, while the letter is addressed to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang; the court’s action is therefore unclear.
The detailed version
- Shamilov v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-10224
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 19, 2022
Document and procedural posture
The provided text is a September 16, 2022 letter from Nicholas Schaefer, a senior counsel for the City of New York, to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang. The case metadata identifies Judge Laura Swain as the judge and gives September 19, 2022 as the filing date. The text does not include an order deciding the request described in the letter.
Request
The City and the individually named defendants who had been served requested a stay of discovery, meaning a temporary pause in exchanging information, while defendants pursued a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. They also requested an adjournment of the initial conference scheduled for September 20, 2022. They proposed postponing the conference until the motion practice concluded.
Defendants’ stated grounds
The letter says the City had previously moved to dismiss the amended complaint, but that motion was denied as moot after the plaintiff served the amended complaint on eleven individually named defendants and defendants sought permission to file a revised motion. The defendants argued that the revised motion had substantial grounds, including assertions that:
- the complaint did not plead sufficient facts for discrimination, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation claims; - the plaintiff improperly attempted to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against state actors; - the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not apply to municipal employees; - the complaint named eleven defendants individually while making few or no allegations against approximately half of them; and - the nearly 80-page statement of facts was inconsistent with the federal rule requiring a short and plain statement of the claim.
The defendants also argued that the plaintiff’s self-represented status and the length of the factual statement suggested discovery would be burdensome and time-consuming. They stated that even a partial dismissal could substantially reduce the scope of discovery.
Disposition
No ruling or disposition appears in the provided text. Accordingly, the materials do not establish whether the court granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the request for a discovery stay or conference adjournment. The text is addressed to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang, which differs from the supplied metadata identifying Judge Laura Swain.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.