Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 21, 2023

Palisades Estates EOM, LLC v. County of Rockland, New York

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:23-cv-04215
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
10
Civil ProcedurePreliminary InjunctionMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Palisades Estates EOM v. County of Rockland, Judge Roman granted in part and denied in part a request to change briefing schedules for three motions.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in Palisades Estates EOM, LLC v. County of Rockland, New York, because the order changed the coordination and timing of briefing on the pending and proposed motions.

What happened

Palisades Estates EOM, LLC v. County of Rockland, New York concerned a request by defendants to change the schedules for a motion to sever and transfer, a motion for a preliminary injunction, and motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs opposed the request.

The court ordered the parties to propose a schedule making all three motions fully submitted on the same date. It temporarily stayed the existing deadlines while the court considered a revised schedule and directed the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint proposal by September 28, 2023.

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ request. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 298. The order did not decide the motions’ underlying issues.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Palisades Estates EOM, LLC v. County of Rockland, New York · No. 7:23-cv-04215
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Sept. 21, 2023

Background

Defendants asked the court to amend the briefing schedule for their planned motion to sever and transfer claims. They also asked the court to stay the briefing schedules for the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The defendants proposed addressing severance and transfer first, with the other motions stayed until those issues were decided.

The defendants argued that this sequence would promote judicial economy because severance or transfer could affect whether the court would need to address the preliminary-injunction and dismissal motions for particular defendants. Plaintiffs opposed the request. They argued that changing the schedule would delay their request for immediate relief and would continue the harm they said they were experiencing.

Court’s action

After reviewing the parties’ letters and relevant case law, the court decided to rearrange the briefing schedules so that the three groups of motions—the motion to sever and transfer, the motion for a preliminary injunction, and the motions to dismiss—would all be fully submitted on the same date. The court did not adopt the defendants’ proposed schedule requiring the severance and transfer motions to be decided before briefing on the other motions.

The court directed the parties to meet and confer and jointly propose a schedule producing that result by September 28, 2023. Until the court issued a revised schedule, it temporarily stayed the previously issued deadlines. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ request and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 298.

What the order did not decide

This was a scheduling order. It did not decide whether the claims should be severed or transferred, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction, or whether any claims should be dismissed. Judge Nelson S. Roman’s order addressed only the timing and coordination of briefing on those motions.

The authoritative version

Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.