Williams v. Lohard
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-10571
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Williams v. Lohard, Judge Halpern denied Hughes’s motion to dismiss and ordered him to answer by September 20, 2023.
Defendant Hughes’s motion to dismiss was denied, and Hughes was directed to file an answer by September 20, 2023.
What happened
In Williams v. Lohard, counsel for all parties appeared in person for a case management conference. The written order does not describe the underlying claims.
The court treated Defendant Hughes’s pre-motion letter as a motion to dismiss. After considering written submissions and hearing counsel, it denied the motion.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered Hughes to file an answer by September 20, 2023. The order states that the reasons were given on the record and cites the law discussed there.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Lohard · No. 7:20-cv-10571
- Philip Halpern
- Sept. 7, 2023
Background
Counsel for all parties appeared in person at a case management conference. The order does not describe the claims or the underlying events.
Motion and ruling
The court construed Defendant Hughes’s pre-motion letter, filed as Document 97, as a motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss asks the court to end some or all claims based on the pleadings and other permitted materials. The court stated that it considered the parties’ written submissions and gave counsel an opportunity to be heard. It then denied the motion for the reasons stated on the record and the law cited there.
Next step
The court directed Hughes to file his answer by September 20, 2023. The order refers to a transcript for the discussion and reasons provided at the conference.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.