Joseph v. City of New York
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:22-cv-09670
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Joseph v. City of New York, Judge Kaplan stayed discovery and adjourned the initial conference while defendants prepared a pleading-based dismissal motion.
The stay affects Jose Joseph and the defendants in the case, including the City of New York and the individual defendants named in the request. Discovery is paused, and the scheduled initial conference is postponed indefinitely.
What happened
Jose Joseph v. City of New York concerns defendants’ request to pause the case while they prepared a motion asking the court to rule based on the existing pleadings. The defendants argued that the motion could dispose of the case and that discovery would require many depositions. Plaintiff consented to the requested pause.
The defendants contended that Joseph’s false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims were likely to fail because the complaint showed probable cause, and that his claim against the City did not adequately allege an unconstitutional policy or custom. The court did not decide whether those arguments were correct.
Judge Kaplan ordered that discovery be stayed on consent and that the April 21, 2023 initial conference be adjourned without setting a new date. The excerpt does not show a ruling on the anticipated pleading-based motion.
The detailed version
- Joseph v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-09670
- Lewis Kaplan
- Apr. 5, 2023
Background
Defendants City of New York and the individual defendants named in the letter asked the court to stay discovery while they prepared a fully dispositive motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). A judgment-on-the-pleadings motion asks the court to decide a case based on the pleadings, such as the complaint and answer, without discovery. Defendants also asked the court to adjourn the April 21, 2023 initial conference without setting a new date. The request stated that Joseph consented to the requested stay.
Arguments described in the letter
Defendants argued that the anticipated motion had substantial grounds. They asserted that probable cause would completely defeat Joseph’s false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims and compared Joseph’s allegations about the complaining victim to allegations discussed in Betts v. Shearman. Defendants also argued that Joseph had not adequately pleaded a municipal-liability claim because his allegations did not identify an unconstitutional City policy or custom.
Defendants further stated that, without a stay, the parties would likely need to take depositions of Joseph, the seven named defendants, the complaining victim, and possibly six additional officers. They argued that pausing discovery would not prejudice Joseph because he had consented.
Court’s action
The endorsement states: “The conference scheduled for April 21, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. is adjourned sine die. Discovery is stayed on consent. SO ORDERED.” In plain English, the court postponed the conference indefinitely and paused discovery because the parties agreed. The excerpt does not show that the court decided the anticipated Rule 12(c) motion or ruled on the merits of Joseph’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.