Covet & Mane, LLC v. Invisible Bead Extensions, LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-07740
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Covet & Mane v. Invisible Bead Extensions, Judge Cronan overruled objections to a discovery-stay denial and denied an emergency stay as moot.
The ruling affected Defendants’ efforts to pause discovery, including Invisible Bead Extensions and the other Defendants covered by the order. It also affected Covet & Mane, which opposed the stay. Cassadi Currier was excluded from the order’s definition of “Defendants” because she had not appeared.
What happened
Covet & Mane, LLC v. Invisible Bead Extensions, LLC concerns Defendants’ request to pause discovery while their motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was pending. A magistrate judge denied that request after considering the dismissal arguments, the parties’ burdens, and the case’s status.
Defendants objected to that decision and separately asked for an emergency stay while the objections were considered. They argued that the denial was improper. Covet & Mane opposed the objections and the emergency request.
Judge John P. Cronan overruled Defendants’ objections, finding that the magistrate judge’s decision was not clearly mistaken or contrary to law. Judge Cronan denied the emergency stay request as moot and directed the Clerk to close that motion’s docket entry.
The detailed version
- Covet & Mane, LLC v. Invisible Bead Extensions, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-07740
- John Cronan
- June 15, 2023
Background
Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on May 23, 2023. They then asked to stay, or pause, discovery while the motion to dismiss was resolved. After Covet & Mane opposed the request, Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger denied it on June 1, 2023, for lack of good cause. He considered the substance of Invisible Bead Extensions’ dismissal arguments, the parties’ relative burdens, and the posture of the case.
For purposes of this order, “Defendants” did not include Cassadi Currier, who had not appeared in the case. Judge Lehrburger had also previously denied two requests by Defendants to stay the case.
Objections and Applicable Standards
Defendants objected to Judge Lehrburger’s non-dispositive order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and separately filed an emergency motion to stay the order while the objections were pending. Under Rule 72(a), a district judge may set aside a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. An order is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is firmly convinced that a mistake was made; an order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant law or procedural rules.
The Court also discussed the traditional factors for deciding whether to grant a stay: the applicant’s likelihood of success, possible irreparable injury without a stay, harm to other parties, and the public interest. The Court noted that district courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to stay proceedings.
Ruling
Judge Cronan held that Judge Lehrburger’s denial of the discovery stay was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Judge Lehrburger had considered the factors required when deciding a stay request, including the dismissal arguments, the parties’ relative burdens, and the case’s posture. The Court rejected Defendants’ argument that the denial should be reviewed for abuse of discretion, explaining that Rule 72(a) required review for clear error or whether the order was contrary to law.
The Court overruled Defendants’ objections. It denied Defendants’ request for an emergency stay pending the decision as moot and directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Number 232. This order addressed the stay and discovery issue; it did not decide the underlying motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.