Avara Pharmaceutical Services LTD. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-09494
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Avara Pharmaceutical Services LTD. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Judge Engelmayer ordered plaintiffs to respond to JPMorgan’s request to pause discovery.
The plaintiffs and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; the order required the plaintiffs to respond to JPMorgan’s request to pause discovery but did not itself decide that request.
What happened
Avara Pharmaceutical Services LTD. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. concerns JPMorgan’s request to pause evidence gathering while the court considers its motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint.
JPMorgan argued that the requested discovery would be broad, involve proceedings in England and Ireland, and might be unnecessary if the court dismisses or narrows the claims. The plaintiffs opposed pausing discovery and proposed an expedited discovery schedule.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer did not decide the request to pause discovery in this order. He directed the plaintiffs to file a response of no more than four single-spaced pages by April 14, 2023.
The detailed version
- Avara Pharmaceutical Services LTD. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · No. 1:22-cv-09494
- Paul Engelmayer
- Apr. 10, 2023
Background
The opinion text is a letter from JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. asking the court to stay, or pause, discovery while the court considers JPMorgan’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The letter states that the plaintiffs are defaulting obligors under a credit agreement and owe JPMorgan more than $23 million. It also states that the plaintiffs sued after JPMorgan brought an action in Oklahoma state court to recover amounts allegedly owed.
The plaintiffs’ amended complaint added allegations concerning JPMorgan’s actions in insolvency proceedings in England and Ireland and added an abuse-of-process claim concerning the Oklahoma action. According to JPMorgan’s letter, the amended complaint also retained the issues raised in the original complaint.
JPMorgan’s Request
JPMorgan argued that discovery should be paused because its motion to dismiss could end the case or substantially narrow the issues. It characterized the anticipated discovery as broad, reaching back to at least 2016 and involving at least two foreign jurisdictions. JPMorgan also pointed to potential privilege-review issues involving communications with liquidators in England and Ireland.
The letter asserted that the motion to dismiss contained multiple independent grounds for dismissal, including contractual waivers and limitations, lack of contractual support for the alleged breach, duplication of the implied-covenant claim, and defects in the abuse-of-process claim. These assertions were JPMorgan’s arguments in support of its request; the order did not decide whether they were correct.
Court’s Action
The court did not grant or deny the request to stay discovery in the text provided. Instead, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer directed the plaintiffs to file, by April 14, 2023, a letter of no more than four single-spaced pages responding to JPMorgan’s motion to stay discovery. The order was signed April 10, 2023.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.