Roth v. Armistice Capital, LLC
- Rochon
- 1:20-cv-08872
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Roth v. Armistice Capital, LLC, Judge Rochon set briefing deadlines without staying summary-judgment briefing while defendants prepared a standing motion.
The order affects Andrew E. Roth and the defendants by setting deadlines for the anticipated motion to dismiss, the summary-judgment motion, and related briefing, and by postponing pretrial submissions.
What happened
In Roth v. Armistice Capital, LLC, the Armistice Defendants asked for a conference about their planned motion challenging the court’s authority to hear the case and asked to pause summary-judgment briefing. Andrew E. Roth opposed that request and asked the court to have both motions proceed on separate schedules.
The court did not decide whether the planned motion was timely or legally valid. It noted that the defendants had raised standing only recently and that the decision they relied on was from another federal district court and was not binding here.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered the defendants to file their motion to dismiss and summary-judgment motion by June 1, 2023, Roth’s opposition briefs by June 29, and the defendants’ replies by July 19. The court also postponed the deadline for pretrial submissions without setting a new date.
The detailed version
- Roth v. Armistice Capital, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-08872
- Rochon
- May 11, 2023
Background
The Armistice Defendants asked for a status conference about the timing of an anticipated motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, specifically a challenge to Andrew E. Roth’s standing. They also asked the court to stay, or pause, the schedule for briefing Roth’s summary-judgment motion. Roth opposed pausing that schedule and asked that the two motions be briefed on parallel tracks. Roth also argued that the anticipated standing motion was late and lacked merit.
Court’s discussion
The court expressly did not decide the merits of the anticipated standing motion. It noted that the only recent case development concerning Roth’s standing appeared to be a decision from the Eastern District of New York, which was not binding on this court. The court also noted Roth’s argument that the Supreme Court decision relied on by that court had been issued about two years earlier, while the defendants did not raise standing until a discovery conference on April 26, 2023.
Order
The court stated that it was not inclined to stay summary-judgment briefing in its entirety at that time. It ordered the defendants to file their motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment by June 1, 2023; Roth to file his opposition briefs by June 29, 2023; and the defendants to file their reply briefs by July 19, 2023. The court also adjourned the deadline for pretrial submissions without setting a new date. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon did not rule on the merits of the anticipated motion to dismiss or the summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.