Antonio Pereira Association v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-08160
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Antonio Pereira Association v. Merrill Lynch, Judge Cronan granted the parties’ request to stay discovery pending defendants’ forum non conveniens motion.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Antonio Pereira Association v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.; discovery in the case is paused pending resolution of defendants’ forthcoming motion to dismiss.
What happened
Antonio Pereira Association v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. involved a joint request by the plaintiffs and defendants to pause discovery.
The parties said discovery was unnecessary while defendants prepared a motion asking the court to dismiss the case based on forum non conveniens, a doctrine concerning whether another court is a more appropriate place to hear a case. They also sought to preserve the possibility of limited discovery about that issue with the court’s permission.
Judge John P. Cronan granted the request. The court stayed discovery pending resolution of defendants’ forthcoming motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.
The detailed version
- Antonio Pereira Association v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-08160
- John Cronan
- Jan. 26, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs and defendants jointly submitted a letter asking the court to stay discovery while defendants prepared a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens. The letter stated that resolving that threshold issue could eliminate issues for the court or affect the scope of discovery.
The Request
The parties said discovery was not necessary at that time. They asked to preserve the ability to seek permission for limited discovery relating specifically to forum non conveniens if such discovery became necessary while the motion was pending. The letter also stated that the parties reserved their rights to oppose any request for that limited discovery.
Ruling
Judge John P. Cronan entered the order: “The request is granted.” Discovery in the case is stayed pending resolution of defendants’ forthcoming motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. This order concerns discovery and does not decide the forthcoming dismissal motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.