Roddey v. Menon
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-07183
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Roddey v. Menon, Judge Broderick held the Rule 11 sanctions matter in abeyance pending a decision on Menon’s motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff Coretta Roddey and her counsel, Susan Ghim, whose response to Defendant Rajesh Menon’s Rule 11 sanctions motion was at issue; Menon’s sanctions motion and motion to dismiss remained pending or subject to the stated abeyance.
What happened
Roddey v. Menon concerns Plaintiff Coretta Roddey’s request about the timing of her response to Defendant Rajesh Menon’s motion for sanctions under Rule 11. Menon had also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), and Roddey had opposed that motion.
Roddey’s counsel asked for an extension of the deadline to oppose the sanctions motion, or for the sanctions matter to remain on hold until the court decided the motion to dismiss. Counsel argued that addressing the two motions together could prejudice Roddey and create conflicts between the arguments made for Roddey and for her lawyer.
The visible order language states that the matter was held in abeyance pending the court’s decision on Menon’s motion to dismiss. Judge Vernon Broderick issued the order. The supplied text does not clearly identify whether the court placed the sanctions motion itself or Roddey’s response deadline on hold.
The detailed version
- Roddey v. Menon · No. 1:22-cv-07183
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 24, 2023
Background
Plaintiff Coretta Roddey, through counsel Susan Ghim, asked the court to extend the deadline for responding to Defendant Rajesh Menon’s motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The filing states that Menon filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), that Roddey opposed the dismissal motion, and that Menon’s reply was pending.
The filing also states that Roddey had filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, which the court had held in abeyance pending its decision on the motion to dismiss. The supplied text includes an additional court-order fragment stating that something was “held in abeyance pending my decision on Defendant’s motion to dismiss,” but the fragment does not clearly identify the precise matter to which it refers.
Parties’ Positions
Roddey’s counsel requested either an extension of time to oppose the sanctions motion or that the sanctions matter be held in abeyance until after the court ruled on the motion to dismiss. Counsel relied on decisions discussing the risks of requiring parties to address sanctions and the merits of a complaint at the same time. Counsel also argued that the complaint was supported by statutes, legal theories, documents, and deposition testimony, and therefore was not frivolous under the standard described in the filing.
The filing further asserted that Menon’s sanctions motion was retaliatory and related to Roddey’s discrimination claims, including a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. These assertions are presented as Roddey’s positions in the request; the supplied text does not show a merits ruling on them.
Ruling
The visible order language states that the matter was held in abeyance pending Judge Vernon S. Broderick’s decision on Menon’s motion to dismiss. The supplied text does not clearly state whether the court held the Rule 11 sanctions motion itself in abeyance, held Roddey’s opposition deadline in abeyance, or ruled on the requested extension in another way. The text does not show a decision on the motion to dismiss, the sanctions motion, or the underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.