Aliyeva v. Diamond Braces
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-04575
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Aliyeva v. Diamond Braces, Judge Failla stayed discovery while the court considered defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Aliyeva v. Diamond Braces are affected because discovery is paused while the court considers the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Aliyeva v. Diamond Braces, the defendants asked the court to pause information-gathering while their motion to dismiss the amended complaint was pending. The case involves alleged wage-related claims under federal and New York law.
The defendants argued that some claims were inadequately supported, lacked the required connection to federal court, or should otherwise be dismissed. They also argued that discovery could be extensive and expensive, especially for possible group claims, while a pause would not unfairly harm the plaintiffs. These arguments were the defendants’ positions, not decisions on the claims’ merits.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered discovery stayed until the court resolves the motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending discovery-stay motion at docket entry 54.
The detailed version
- Aliyeva v. Diamond Braces · No. 1:22-cv-04575
- Katherine Failla
- May 12, 2023
Background
The defendants asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery while their motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was pending. Discovery is the pretrial process through which parties obtain information and documents from one another. The defendants’ letter stated that they had filed the motion to dismiss at docket entries 50 through 53.
The defendants argued that dismissal of some or all claims was warranted. The claims discussed included alleged time-shaving under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, claims concerning wage notices, Michelle Isayeva’s federal wage claim, Fernandez’s claim for paid time off at separation, and Fernandez’s retaliation and contract-related claims. The defendants also argued that some state-law claims lacked a sufficient connection to the federal case and that discovery could be extensive, costly, and intrusive, particularly if collective or class-wide claims remained. These were arguments made in support of the stay request; the opinion does not decide the motion to dismiss.
Court’s ruling
The court stated that its general practice is to stay discovery when a potentially case-ending motion to dismiss has been filed. Because the defendants had filed that motion, the court ordered that discovery in the case “is stayed pending the Court’s resolution of the motion.”
Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not rule in this order on whether any claim should be dismissed. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 54. The opinion does not state that the discovery stay was limited to particular claims or set a separate end date.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.