Dental Recycling North America, Inc. v. Stoma Ventures, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-09147
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Dental Recycling v. Stoma Ventures: Judge Failla denied discovery while a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was pending.
Dental Recycling North America, Inc.’s request to begin merits discovery was denied, and discovery remained stayed while Stoma Ventures, LLC’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was pending.
What happened
In Dental Recycling North America, Inc. v. Stoma Ventures, LLC, the plaintiff asked to begin merits discovery while the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was pending.
The defendant opposed the request, arguing that discovery had been stayed and that the plaintiff had not shown a specific reason or unfair harm requiring the stay to be lifted.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied the plaintiff’s application, explaining that the court generally does not order discovery while a potentially case-ending motion is unresolved. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket number 35.
The detailed version
- Dental Recycling North America, Inc. v. Stoma Ventures, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09147
- Katherine Failla
- Oct. 4, 2022
Background
The plaintiff, Dental Recycling North America, Inc. (“DRNA”), asked the court to allow merits discovery while the defendant, Stoma Ventures, LLC (“Stoma”), pursued a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court had previously stayed discovery while that motion was pending.
Stoma opposed DRNA’s request. In its opposition, Stoma argued that DRNA had not conferred with Stoma before filing the request, had not provided substantive legal support for lifting the stay, and had not made a particularized showing of prejudice. Stoma also argued that the jurisdictional motion could dispose of the case.
Ruling
The court denied DRNA’s application. Judge Failla stated that it is the court’s practice not to order discovery while a fully dispositive motion is pending. The court did not decide the pending personal-jurisdiction motion in this order. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion listed at docket number 35.
Effect
The ruling left the discovery stay in place while the motion to dismiss remained unresolved. The order addressed only whether discovery should begin during that period; it did not determine whether the court had personal jurisdiction over Stoma or resolve the underlying dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.