Belen v. Herman
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:22-cv-06455
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Belen v. Herman, Judge Hellerstein denied Herman’s motion to stay or extend his deadline because this federal case was not contingent on other lawsuits.
Julian M. Herman must file his answer when due; the federal case continues without the requested pause or extension.
What happened
Belen v. Herman concerns a request by defendant Julian M. Herman to pause the federal case or extend the deadline for filing his answer, defenses, and counterclaims. Herman relied on a pending appeal in a separate New York state-court matter involving restrictions on litigation against Ariel E. Belen.
Herman argued that the state-court order prevented him from asserting counterclaims without risking a violation of that order. He alternatively asked for more time to answer and for additional time to file counterclaims after the state appeal was decided.
The court denied the motion for a stay or enlargement of time and stated that the federal action was not contingent on other lawsuits. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ordered that the answer be filed when due.
The detailed version
- Belen v. Herman · No. 1:22-cv-06455
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Feb. 12, 2024
Procedural Background
The plaintiffs are Ariel E. Belen, acting in trustee capacities identified in the caption, and Rosemarie Herman, also acting as a trustee. The defendants include Julian M. Herman and the other parties listed in the caption. After the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on January 30, 2024, Julian M. Herman moved to stay the federal action or enlarge the time to file his answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims. In the alternative, he asked the court to toll the deadline for filing counterclaims.
Herman based the request on a September 12, 2023 decision and order from the New York Supreme Court and a pending appeal from that order. He argued that the state-court order required him to discontinue litigation against Ariel E. Belen and therefore prevented him from asserting counterclaims in this federal case without risking contempt. He requested a stay until the state appeal was resolved, or additional time to respond after that decision.
Ruling
The court denied the motion for a stay or enlargement of time. Its order stated that the federal action was not contingent on any other lawsuits and directed that an answer be filed when due. The order did not grant the requested stay, extend the deadline, or toll the time for filing counterclaims. This ruling addressed the requested scheduling relief rather than deciding the underlying claims or the merits of any proposed counterclaims.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.