New v. JP Morgan Chase, NA
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-09371
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In New v. JP Morgan Chase, Judge Ho ordered a response to Rob D. New’s request to pause the case; the court did not decide the request.
Rob D. New and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; the defendant was required to respond to New’s motion, while the excerpt leaves the stay request and the defendant’s other motion unresolved.
What happened
In New v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Rob D. New asked the court to pause the proceedings while another federal court considered a motion involving a related case.
New’s filing also opposed the bank’s pending request to dismiss the case, require arbitration, or dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). New was represented by attorneys.
Judge Dale E. Ho ordered the defendant to file a response of no more than three pages by February 6, 2024, and directed the clerk to close docket entry 26. The order did not say whether the request to pause the case was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- New v. JP Morgan Chase, NA · No. 1:23-cv-09371
- Ho
- Feb. 2, 2024
Background
Rob D. New, through counsel, filed a motion asking the court to stay, or pause, this case. He sought the stay while the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California considered a motion to substitute or join a plaintiff and lift a stay in a related proceeding identified in the filing as Case No. 2:19-cv-10337-DSF-JPR.
Other Pending Motion
New’s supporting memorandum also opposed JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s motion to dismiss the case or, alternatively, to compel arbitration or dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. The excerpt does not decide that motion.
Court’s Action
Judge Dale E. Ho ordered the defendant to file a response letter of no more than three pages by Tuesday, February 6, 2024. The judge also directed the clerk to close docket entry 26. The order does not state that the requested stay was granted or denied, and it does not resolve the defendant’s motion to dismiss or compel arbitration.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.