Eldridge v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-03727
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Eldridge v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Judge Schofield denied FirstGroup’s application to stay discovery while it prepared a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
FirstGroup, PLC and the plaintiff are directly affected: the court denied FirstGroup’s request to pause discovery directed to FirstGroup. The order also indicates that discovery could continue against other defendants.
What happened
In Eldridge v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., FirstGroup asked the court to pause discovery directed to it while it prepared a motion to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. FirstGroup also requested an interim stay while the court considered that request.
FirstGroup argued that the plaintiff had not yet served discovery requests on it, that pausing discovery would not harm the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff could seek discovery from other defendants. FirstGroup also argued that its anticipated jurisdictional motion was strong and that discovery could impose a substantial burden.
Judge Schofield denied the application. She explained that the court generally does not stay discovery while a motion to dismiss is pending and that discovery here was likely to provide information relevant to the jurisdictional issue.
The detailed version
- Eldridge v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-03727
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 2, 2023
Background
FirstGroup, PLC, through its counsel, asked the court to stay discovery directed to FirstGroup while FirstGroup pursued an anticipated motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. FirstGroup also requested an interim order pausing discovery while the court considered the application.
FirstGroup argued that the court has discretion to stay discovery while a potentially case-dispositive motion is pending. It stated that the plaintiff had not yet served discovery requests under Rules 33 or 34, so the scope and response burden of discovery were not yet applicable. FirstGroup also argued that the plaintiff would not be prejudiced by a stay limited to FirstGroup because discovery could continue against the other defendants, particularly Greyhound.
Arguments About Personal Jurisdiction
FirstGroup argued that the complaint’s allegations concerning personal jurisdiction were conclusory and did not identify supporting facts against FirstGroup. It also argued that the allegation that FirstGroup once owned Greyhound was insufficient by itself to establish personal jurisdiction. FirstGroup stated that it would submit an affidavit from Greyhound asserting that FirstGroup had no control over Greyhound’s day-to-day operations, including the plaintiff’s employment.
FirstGroup further argued that discovery would impose a substantial burden because, according to the complaint and FirstGroup’s submission, FirstGroup is an international business entity with its principal place of business in Scotland and no physical presence in New York or elsewhere in the United States. The plaintiff did not consent to the requested stay.
Ruling
Judge Schofield denied the application. The court stated that it does not typically stay discovery while a motion to dismiss is pending. The court also stated that discovery in this case was likely to shed light on the jurisdictional issue. The opinion does not decide FirstGroup’s anticipated motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.