Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 11, 2024

Cerco Bridge Loans 6 LLC v. Schenker

Judge
Ho
Docket
1:23-cv-11093
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureDiscoveryMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Cerco Bridge Loans 6 LLC v. Schenker, Judge Ho denied defendants’ request to delay proceedings and obtain jurisdictional discovery, while extending one filing deadline.

Who this affects

Cerco Bridge Loans 6 LLC, Gregg Schenker, and Steven Hornstock. The ruling keeps the case moving, denies the requested jurisdictional discovery and adjournment, extends a filing deadline, and closes the earlier motion to dismiss as moot.

What happened

In Cerco Bridge Loans 6 LLC v. Schenker, defendants asked to postpone the initial pretrial conference and obtain discovery about whether the federal court had jurisdiction. Cerco had filed a first amended complaint, replacing its original complaint.

The court denied defendants’ letter motion. It said it would not address the jurisdiction issue at that time, and extended to March 13, 2024, the deadline for filing a joint letter and proposed case-management and scheduling documents. The court also ruled that defendants’ earlier motion to dismiss was moot because Cerco had filed the amended complaint.

Judge Dale E. Ho ordered the clerk to close the docket entries for the earlier motion to dismiss and the denied letter motion. The order did not decide the jurisdiction issue or the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Cerco Bridge Loans 6 LLC v. Schenker · No. 1:23-cv-11093
Judge
Ho
Date
Mar. 11, 2024

Background

Defendants Gregg Schenker and Steven Hornstock filed a letter motion seeking to adjourn, or postpone, the initial pretrial conference and requesting jurisdictional discovery. Jurisdictional discovery is information exchanged to address whether the court has authority to hear a case. The opinion text includes a March 10 letter from Cerco Bridge Loans 6 LLC opposing that request.

Cerco had filed a First Amended Complaint, docketed as ECF No. 23. The court stated that defendants’ earlier motion to dismiss, ECF No. 20, was moot because of that amended complaint.

Court’s Rulings

Judge Dale E. Ho denied defendants’ letter motion to adjourn the initial pretrial conference and request for jurisdictional discovery, ECF No. 25. The court stated that it would not address the jurisdiction issue at that time.

The court extended to March 13, 2024, the deadline to file the joint letter and proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order. It also ruled that the earlier motion to dismiss was moot because Cerco filed its First Amended Complaint.

The court requested that the clerk close ECF Nos. 20 and 25. The order did not decide the jurisdiction issue or the merits of the underlying dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.