Sullivan v. Gelb
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-05194
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sullivan v. Gelb, Judge Woods granted the parties’ request to stay discovery pending motions to dismiss and remand.
The parties to Sullivan’s lawsuit, including Sullivan and the defendants, are affected because discovery is paused while the court considers the pending motions to dismiss and remand.
What happened
Sullivan v. Gelb concerns Mark Sullivan’s lawsuit arising from the termination of his employment with the Metropolitan Opera. The defendants removed the case from state court, and Sullivan later asked the federal court to send it back.
All parties jointly requested that discovery pause while the court considered the defendants’ motions to dismiss and Sullivan’s motion to remand. They said the dismissal motions could end the case and that a remand could lead to different discovery rules, avoiding wasted or repeated work.
Judge Woods granted the request. The court found good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and stayed discovery until it resolves the pending motions to dismiss and remand. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion listed at Docket No. 47.
The detailed version
- Sullivan v. Gelb · No. 1:23-cv-05194
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 14, 2023
Background
The action arises from Mark Sullivan’s termination of employment with the Metropolitan Opera on August 1, 2022. Sullivan filed the complaint in state court on May 17, 2023. The defendants removed the action to federal court on June 20, 2023.
On August 11, 2023, Sullivan moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court. That same day, the defendants filed motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The opinion identifies Peter Gelb, Marcia Sells, Stephanie Basta, and Samuel Wheeler as defendants.
Request to Stay Discovery
The parties jointly and with consent asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery while it decided the motions to dismiss and the motion to remand. The defendants argued that their motions relied on federal labor-law preemption and could potentially result in dismissal of the entire complaint. The parties also argued that, if Sullivan won the remand motion, discovery would proceed under state-court procedures, which could require them to redo discovery requests. They sought the stay to conserve resources and avoid duplicative discovery. Because all parties joined the request, they stated that no party would be prejudiced.
Ruling
The court granted the application. It found good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to stay discovery pending resolution of the defendants’ motions to dismiss and Sullivan’s motion to remand. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at Docket No. 47. The order did not decide the merits of the motions to dismiss or the motion to remand.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.