von der Schmidt v. Higgins
- P. Castel
- 1:23-cv-03919
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In von der Schmidt v. Higgins, Judge Castel allowed defendants to file a partial dismissal motion and extended their answer deadline.
The order affected the plaintiffs, Edward M. Von Der Schmidt and Keanna Ngo, and the defendants Tom Higgins, Flavio Colella, and Silverstein Properties, doing business as River Place Management, by setting deadlines for a proposed partial dismissal motion and an answer. It also maintained discovery and imposed a joint case-management-plan deadline on the parties.
What happened
In von der Schmidt v. Higgins, the defendants asked to file a motion seeking dismissal of the amended complaint’s third, fourth, and sixth claims. Those claims involved alleged defamation, emotional-distress theories, and premises liability, but the court did not decide whether the claims were legally sufficient.
The court allowed the defendants to file the motion by October 6, 2023, and extended their deadline to answer the other claims until that date. Discovery was not paused, and the parties were ordered to submit a joint case-management plan and scheduling order by October 10, 2023.
Judge P. Kevin Castel terminated the two letter motions, permitted the proposed motion schedule, and otherwise entered the scheduling directions described above. The order did not grant or deny the requested dismissal itself.
The detailed version
- von der Schmidt v. Higgins · No. 1:23-cv-03919
- P. Castel
- Sept. 18, 2023
Background
The defendants—identified in the letter as Tom Higgins, Flavio Colella, and Silverstein Properties, doing business as River Place Management—requested permission to file a partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim for relief. The proposed motion would challenge the third, fourth, and sixth causes of action in the plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. The letter describes those claims as involving defamation per se, defamation, and premises liability, among other claims listed in the pleading.
The defendants argued that the challenged claims relied on conclusions rather than enough factual allegations. They specifically disputed allegations concerning statements Tom Higgins allegedly made to Edward M. Von Der Schmidt’s family members and an alleged attempted entry and harassment incident at the plaintiffs’ apartment. These were arguments in the defendants’ requested motion; the court did not resolve them in this order.
Court’s Action
The court stated that the defendants were free to file their motion if they did so by October 6, 2023. It extended the defendants’ time to answer all claims not covered by that motion until October 6, 2023. The court did not grant or deny the proposed Rule 12(b)(6) motion and did not decide the merits of any claim.
The court also stated that discovery was not stayed, directed the parties to submit a joint case-management plan and scheduling order by October 10, 2023, and terminated Letter Motions 24 and 25. The order was signed by P. Kevin Castel on September 18, 2023.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.