Rosas v. Shorehaven Homeowners Association, Inc.
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-04052
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Rosas v. Shorehaven Homeowners Association: Judge Clarke denied defendants’ request to postpone the initial conference while their dismissal motion was pending.
The defendants, Shorehaven Homeowners Association, Inc. and Haydee Rosario, and the plaintiff, because the court kept the preliminary conference and related case-management process moving while the motion to dismiss remained pending.
What happened
In Rosas v. Shorehaven Homeowners Association, Inc., the defendants asked the court to postpone an upcoming initial conference because they had filed a motion to dismiss.
The defendants said postponement could save time and resources by avoiding or narrowing discovery, the exchange of information and evidence before trial. They stated that the plaintiff’s lawyer did not agree to the request.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied the request, explaining that filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically pause discovery. The order kept the conference and related case-management filings on schedule, although part of the provided text describing those deadlines is unclear.
The detailed version
- Rosas v. Shorehaven Homeowners Association, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04052
- Clarke
- Oct. 19, 2023
Background
Defendants Shorehaven Homeowners Association, Inc. and Haydee Rosario asked the court to stay, or postpone, the preliminary conference scheduled for October 24, 2023. Their request was based on a pending motion to dismiss. They argued that waiting for a ruling on that motion could conserve the court’s and the parties’ time and resources because the motion might eliminate the need for discovery or limit its scope. The defendants stated that they had consulted the plaintiff’s counsel and that counsel did not consent to the request.
Court’s ruling
The court denied the request. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke stated that filing a motion to dismiss does not stay discovery. The order also addressed the parties’ joint letter, proposed case-management plan, and initial pretrial conference, but portions of the provided text describing the applicable filing deadline are garbled. The opinion does not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the merits of the underlying dispute.
Disposition
The defendants’ request to stay the preliminary conference was denied. The order did not state that the motion to dismiss was granted or denied.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.