Bardsley v. Nonni's Foods LLC
- Nelson Roman
- 7:20-cv-02979
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Bardsley v. Nonni’s Foods LLC—Judge Roman granted Nonni’s motion to stay discovery pending a ruling on its motion to dismiss.
Lisa Bardsley and Nonni’s Foods LLC. Discovery in the case is paused while the court considers Nonni’s motion to dismiss; the order does not resolve the remaining claims.
What happened
In Bardsley v. Nonni’s Foods LLC, the defendant asked the court to pause discovery while it pursued a motion to dismiss. The filing states that only the plaintiff’s class claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 remained after an earlier ruling.
The defendant argued that the pending motion could end the case because it challenged the required amount in controversy under the Class Action Fairness Act. It also argued that the plaintiff’s discovery requests were broad and would require substantial time and expense.
Judge Nelson Roman granted the request to stay discovery until the court resolves the motion to dismiss. The order did not decide whether the remaining claims should be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Bardsley v. Nonni's Foods LLC · No. 7:20-cv-02979
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 5, 2022
Background
Nonni’s Foods LLC moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 to stay, or pause, all discovery while the court considered Nonni’s renewed motion to dismiss. The filing states that an earlier order dismissed with prejudice all claims in Lisa Bardsley’s First Amended Class Action Complaint except class claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350.
Nonni’s argued that its motion to dismiss was outcome-determinative because it challenged whether Bardsley could satisfy the amount-in-controversy and jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act. According to the filing, Nonni’s submitted supplemental affidavits asserting that its sales were below $100,000 and that Bardsley could not show that the claim exceeded the statute’s $5 million jurisdictional amount.
Arguments About Discovery
Bardsley did not consent to the stay and had served discovery requests consisting of 14 interrogatories, 36 document requests, and six requests for admission. Nonni’s argued that the requests were broad and would require considerable time, money, and resources to answer. It also argued that Bardsley would not be prejudiced by a pause because Nonni’s had not made the product in question since September 28, 2016.
The motion cited the court’s authority to stay discovery for good cause and identified three considerations: the breadth of the discovery, potential prejudice, and the strength of the pending motion. Nonni’s argued that all three factors favored a stay and that the stay would conserve judicial resources if the motion to dismiss resulted in the case’s dismissal.
Ruling
Judge Nelson Roman granted Nonni’s request to stay discovery until the court resolves the motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 38. The order addressed discovery only; the text does not state that the court ruled on the motion to dismiss or on the merits of the remaining claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.