Hamilton Advance, Inc. v. Premium Capital Fund
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:22-cv-08347
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hamilton Advance v. Premium Capital Fund, Judge Parker set deadlines for pleadings, discovery, and a status update.
Hamilton Advance, Inc., the listed defendants, and their counsel are affected by the deadlines and discovery requirements in the scheduling order.
What happened
In Hamilton Advance, Inc. v. Premium Capital Fund, the parties attended an initial case-management conference on March 2, 2023. The court reviewed the pleadings and consulted with the parties.
The order set deadlines to amend pleadings or join parties, answer or move to dismiss, exchange initial disclosures, submit a proposed protective order, serve initial document requests, complete fact discovery, and file a joint status letter. It also explained discovery-objection and document-request obligations.
This was a scheduling order, not a decision on the claims. Judge Katharine H. Parker entered the order on March 3, 2023.
The detailed version
- Hamilton Advance, Inc. v. Premium Capital Fund · No. 1:22-cv-08347
- Lewis Kaplan
- Mar. 3, 2023
Background
The opinion is an initial case-management conference order in a case brought by Hamilton Advance, Inc. against The Buzaglo Group Inc., Meir Buzaglo, Premium Capital Fund, AMRK Enterprises, Inc., Ralph R. Madeb, Albert Mizrahi, Masche Albukai, Moshe Wireless Inc., Isaac Siweid, Magi Halabi, Esty Hara, and Elan Azizian. The parties appeared for an initial case-management conference on March 2, 2023.
Order
After reviewing the pleadings and consulting with the parties, the court entered a scheduling order under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The order provided that:
- The parties could amend the pleadings and join parties until April 17,
- Further amendments or joinder would require good cause. - The defendants had until April 3, 2023, to answer the complaint or move to dismiss. If they chose to move to dismiss instead of answering, the parties were directed to write to the court to propose a briefing schedule. - Initial disclosures, a proposed protective order, and initial document requests were due March 16,
- - Fact discovery had to be completed by September 29,
- - The parties had to follow the court’s procedures for discovery disputes and comply with the federal rules governing the scope and conduct of discovery. - Counsel were directed to understand their obligations concerning document requests and objections. The order warned that overly broad requests may be improper and that insufficiently explained objections may be forfeited, except for privilege objections as described in the order. - The parties had to file a joint status letter by April 17, 2023, updating the court about discovery and their request for a settlement conference.
Effect and Classification
The court entered a case schedule and discovery-related directives. It did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses, and it did not rule on a motion to dismiss. The order is therefore a procedural order. Judge Katharine H. Parker signed it on March 3, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.