Almanzar v. Santander Bank, N.A.
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-10706
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Almanzar v. Santander Bank, Judge Subramanian denied Santander’s request to delay the conference and pause discovery while its dismissal motion remained pending.
Santander Bank, N.A.’s requests to postpone the initial pretrial conference and pause discovery were denied at that stage; the court indicated that Santander could renew the request later if discovery became more extensive.
What happened
In Juan B. Almanzar v. Santander Bank, N.A., Santander asked to postpone the initial pretrial conference and related deadlines and to pause discovery while its motion to dismiss was pending. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
Santander argued that discovery should be paused because its motion raised questions about standing and whether Almanzar had stated a legal claim. Almanzar did not consent and said he did not want discovery delayed.
The court denied Santander’s motion at that stage. It concluded that the case was still in its early stages and that the expected scheduling and initial discovery tasks were not burdensome enough to justify a pause; Judge Arun Subramanian said Santander could renew the request if extensive document production or depositions became necessary while the motion remained unresolved.
The detailed version
- Almanzar v. Santander Bank, N.A. · No. 1:23-cv-10706
- Subramanian
- Feb. 15, 2024
Background
Santander filed a motion seeking an adjournment of the initial pretrial conference and its related deadline to submit a proposed case-management and scheduling order. Santander also asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery while the court considered Santander’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The opinion states that Almanzar did not consent and did not want discovery delayed.
Arguments
Santander argued that its motion to dismiss made substantial arguments that Almanzar lacked standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and had not stated a cause of action under Rule 12(b)(6). It also argued that allowing discovery to proceed could waste resources and impose unnecessary costs while the court considered whether it had jurisdiction and whether the claims could proceed. Santander emphasized that the case was at an early stage and that no discovery schedule had yet been ordered.
Ruling
The court denied the motion at that juncture. It explained that the case was still in its early stages because the initial conference had not occurred. The court found that setting a schedule, negotiating discovery parameters, adopting a protective order, preserving documents, and sending and receiving discovery requests over the next month or two were not sufficiently burdensome to warrant a stay. The court stated that Santander could renew its application if the case reached voluminous document production or depositions while the motion to dismiss remained unresolved. The Clerk was directed to terminate Docket Entry 19.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.