Lojewski v. Group Solar USA, LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-10816
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lojewski v. Group Solar, Judge Engelmayer extended briefing deadlines but declined to stay dismissal-motion briefing because arbitration involved only some plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs, Solar Mosaic LLC, and the schedule for briefing on the arbitration and dismissal motions were affected. The order did not resolve the underlying motions.
What happened
In Lojewski v. Group Solar USA, LLC, the plaintiffs asked for more time to respond to a motion requiring arbitration and to amend their complaint or oppose a motion to dismiss. They also asked the court to pause briefing on the motion to dismiss and to strike the class allegations while the arbitration issue was considered.
The court granted the requests to extend the deadlines to March 24, 2023. It declined to pause briefing on the motion to dismiss because the arbitration motion concerned only some plaintiffs. Solar Mosaic LLC could file a reply on the arbitration motion by April 7, 2023. If the plaintiffs amended their complaint, Mosaic had until April 14, 2023, to answer, file a new dismissal motion, or state that it relied on its earlier motion.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer entered this scheduling order on February 21, 2023. The order addressed deadlines and briefing sequence; it did not decide whether arbitration was required or whether the complaint stated a valid claim.
The detailed version
- Lojewski v. Group Solar USA, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-10816
- Paul Engelmayer
- Feb. 21, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs' counsel asked for three forms of relief concerning two motions filed by Solar Mosaic LLC: a motion to compel arbitration, Dkt. 16, and a combined motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and strike the class allegations, Dkt. 19. The plaintiffs requested that the deadline to oppose the arbitration motion and the deadline to amend the complaint be extended by 30 days, to March 24, 2023. They also asked the court to hold the dismissal and class-allegations briefing in abeyance—meaning temporarily pause it—until the arbitration motion was resolved. Alternatively, they requested a 30-day extension, to March 24, 2023, for opposing those motions. The opinion states that Mosaic consented to the extension requests but opposed pausing the dismissal-motion briefing.
Ruling
The court granted the plaintiffs' requests to file their opposition to the motion to compel arbitration and their amended complaint or opposition to the motion to dismiss by March 24, 2023. The court declined the request to stay briefing on the motion to dismiss because the arbitration motion concerned only a subset of the plaintiffs.
The court set April 7, 2023, as the deadline for Mosaic's reply, if any, to the arbitration motion. If the plaintiffs amended their complaint, the court ordered Mosaic, by April 14, 2023, to do one of three things: file an answer, file a new motion to dismiss, or submit a letter stating that it relied on its previously filed motion to dismiss. The order did not decide the merits of the arbitration issue, the dismissal motion, or the class allegations.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.