Walston v. City of New York
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:22-cv-10002
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Walston v. City of New York, Judge Willis allowed defendants to withdraw their dismissal motion but denied their discovery-stay request without prejudice.
The order directly affected Jordin Walston, her infant child L.W., and the defendants because it allowed the defendants to withdraw their pending motion to dismiss, denied their request to pause discovery without prejudice, and set a deadline for a new dismissal motion.
What happened
In Walston v. City of New York, the defendants asked to withdraw their pending motion to dismiss the original complaint after Jordin Walston filed an amended complaint. Walston opposed withdrawal, arguing that it would give the defendants another chance and reduce efficiency.
The defendants also asked to pause discovery while their dismissal motion was pending. The court found that the short delay in getting client approval was not improper conduct, that any prejudice to the plaintiffs was limited, and that new briefing on the amended complaint would promote efficiency.
Judge Willis granted the motion to withdraw the motion to dismiss and denied the request to pause discovery without prejudice. The defendants were allowed until June 15, 2023, to file a new motion to dismiss based on the amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Walston v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-10002
- Lewis Kaplan
- May 19, 2023
Background
Jordin Walston, individually and on behalf of her infant child, L.W., filed the initial complaint in November 2022. The defendants later filed a motion to dismiss. District Judge Lewis Kaplan referred all dispositive motions to Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis.
Walston's attorney notified defense counsel that the plaintiffs intended to file an amended complaint and sent a redline version of it. The plaintiffs asked the defendants to withdraw their pending motion to dismiss. Defense counsel said that she needed to consult with clients who were temporarily unavailable. When the plaintiffs' opposition deadline arrived, they filed an opposition addressing the allegations in the amended complaint.
After the amended complaint was filed, the defendants moved to withdraw their original motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs opposed that request, arguing that withdrawal would give the defendants two chances to address the claims and would not promote judicial efficiency. The defendants also asked to stay, or pause, discovery while the motion to dismiss was pending.
Court's Analysis
The court explained that a motion submitted to the court may be withdrawn only with the court's consent. Although withdrawal can be denied when it reflects gamesmanship or prejudices the opposing party, the court found no improper gamesmanship here. It concluded that defense counsel's inability to obtain client approval between Thursday evening and Monday at noon was not an improper delay.
The court found that the plaintiffs would suffer only marginal prejudice because the defendants might benefit somewhat from seeing the plaintiffs' opposition, but not substantially more than they would benefit from a reply. The court also concluded that judicial efficiency would be served by new briefing focused clearly on the amended complaint.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer E. Willis granted the defendants' motion to withdraw the motion to dismiss. She denied the defendants' motion to stay discovery without prejudice. The defendants were given until June 15, 2023, to file a new motion to dismiss based on the amended complaint. If they filed a new motion, they could submit a new request to stay discovery. The order also directed the Clerk to close Docket Nos. 28, 33, 46, and 50.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.