Katz v. New York City Housing Preservation & Development
- Rochon
- 1:21-cv-02933
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Katz v. New York City Housing Preservation & Development, Judge Rochon granted defendants’ requests to extend their response deadline and stay discovery pending dismissal motions.
The defendants received an extension until April 18, 2023, to file motions to dismiss, and discovery for the plaintiffs and defendants was paused while those motions are resolved.
What happened
In Katz v. New York City Housing Preservation & Development, the defendants asked for more time to respond to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint and asked the court to pause discovery while their planned motions to dismiss were considered.
The defendants argued that their dismissal motions had substantial legal grounds and could eliminate all of the plaintiffs’ claims. They also argued that discovery would impose unnecessary costs and burdens, while the plaintiffs would not be unfairly harmed by a short delay. The provided text does not state the plaintiffs’ position on the requests.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted both requests. She extended the deadline for defendants to file their motions to dismiss to April 18, 2023, and stayed discovery until the court resolves those motions. The order did not decide the motions to dismiss themselves.
The detailed version
- Katz v. New York City Housing Preservation & Development · No. 1:21-cv-02933
- Rochon
- Mar. 13, 2023
Background
The defendants jointly filed a letter motion concerning the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The defendants stated that their deadline to respond was March 16, 2023, and requested an extension until April 18, 2023. They also requested a stay of discovery, meaning that discovery would be paused, until the court ruled on their anticipated motions to dismiss.
The defendants argued that the anticipated motions to dismiss had substantial grounds and might eliminate all of the plaintiffs’ claims. In particular, they argued that the amended complaint did not adequately plead a Fair Housing Act disparate-treatment claim based on familial status. They contended that the allegations concerned household size rather than discrimination based on having children. These were the defendants’ arguments in support of their anticipated motions, not rulings on those motions.
The defendants also argued that proceeding with discovery could require substantial time and expense, including collecting and reviewing documents and electronically stored information. They asserted that the plaintiffs would not suffer unfair prejudice from a limited stay because the dismissal motions would be briefed by May 2023. The text states that the plaintiffs had not stated whether they consented to or opposed either request.
Court’s ruling
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the defendants’ requests. The court ordered that the defendants file their motions to dismiss the amended complaint no later than April 18, 2023. The court also found good cause to stay discovery pending resolution of the motions to dismiss, noting that the anticipated motion might dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ claims and that the court had previously dismissed a complaint in the action.
The order addressed the extension and discovery stay only. It did not rule on whether the anticipated motions to dismiss should be granted or denied.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.