Agra v. Center for Brain
Maciniak-Domingues Goncalves Agra v. Center for Brain, Minds and Machines at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Andrew Carter
- 1:22-cv-10959
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Karolina Maria v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Judge Carter denied consolidation and a briefing stay, ordering the parties to follow the existing schedule.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the two related cases, particularly the parties subject to the existing motions-to-dismiss briefing schedule.
What happened
In Karolina Maria v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the plaintiffs asked the court to combine this case with a later related case and pause the schedule for the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown good cause for filing the later case instead of asking to amend their complaint in the first case. It also was not persuaded that combining the cases would promote efficiency or avoid unfairness, especially because defendants had already filed their initial motion papers.
The court denied both requests and ordered the parties to follow the existing briefing schedule. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. issued the order on January 11, 2024.
The detailed version
- Agra v. Center for Brain · No. 1:22-cv-10959
- Andrew Carter
- Jan. 11, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs asked the court to consolidate this case, which the opinion calls “Marciniak I,” with a later case, “Marciniak II,” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42. They also asked the court to stay, or pause, the existing briefing schedule for the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
The opinion states that the plaintiffs filed Marciniak I on December 29, 2022, and Marciniak II on November 22, 2023. The court had already approved a revised schedule for briefing the motions to dismiss, and defendants in Marciniak I had filed their initial motion papers.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown good cause for filing a new action involving common legal and factual questions and substantially the same parties and witnesses, rather than seeking to amend their first amended complaint in Marciniak I. The court also was not persuaded that consolidation would promote efficient case management or prevent prejudice to the parties.
Ruling
The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to consolidate the cases and denied their request to stay briefing on the motions to dismiss. It ordered the parties to follow the existing motions-to-dismiss briefing schedule. The order was signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.