The Regency NYC, Inc. v. Atkinson

Background

The defendants—Barbara Atkinson, Worth Higgins & Associates, Inc., Brian Losch, and Benny Bowman—asked the court to adjourn, or postpone, the initial pretrial conference scheduled for September 29, 2023. They also asked to postpone the September 22 deadline for submitting a joint letter and a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order.

The request was made while defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint was pending. That motion was filed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(2) concerns personal jurisdiction, meaning the court’s authority over a defendant; Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Defendants asserted that all causes of action failed to state a claim and that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Losch and Bowman.

Parties’ Positions

Defendants argued that postponement would conserve judicial and party resources because the pending motion could result in dismissal of the action or significant changes to the parties and claims. They also argued that discovery should not begin because the parties could not yet know which claims would remain after the motion was decided.

Defendants stated that they had asked plaintiff’s counsel for consent and that plaintiff’s counsel refused, explaining that he did not want to delay discovery.

Ruling

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied the application. The court stated that filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery, citing Hong Leong Fin. Ltd. (Singapore) v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., 297 F.R.D. 69, 72 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

The joint letter and proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order remained due on September 22, 2023. The initial pretrial conference remained scheduled for September 29, 2023. The order addressed only the request to postpone those proceedings; it did not decide the pending motion to dismiss.