Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection
-
Order | Filed: February 29, 2024 | Entered: February 29, 2024 Clark v. State of Connecticut et al
Civil Rights: Other | Connecticut
Order on Motion to Stay
ORDER granting 52 , 56 , Motions to Stay Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 obligations and discovery pending Defendants' motions to dismiss.
Initially, the Court finds that Plaintiff's appeal has not divested this Court of jurisdiction to rule on Defendants' motions to stay discovery. "The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance--it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). However, insofar as the appeal concerns the Court's order dismissing the judicial Defendants, the Court retains jurisdiction over the remaining issues and Defendants. See United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247, 251-52 (2d Cir. 1996) (explaining courts are divested of jurisdiction as to only the issues contained in the notice of appeal). And insofar as Plaintiff has appealed the Court's orders denying a stay of the case pending appeal and denying his motion for reconsideration on this issue, the Court does not believe those notices of appeal divest the Court of jurisdiction because they are not final, appealable orders and Plaintiff has not, to the Court's knowledge, sought or received from the Court of Appeals an order staying this action pending resolution of his appeal of this issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2). Therefore, the Court will consider whether it should exercise its discretion to stay discovery pending the resolution of Defendants' motions to dismiss.
"It is well-settled that a district court has discretion to halt discovery pending its decision on a motion to dismiss." Gandler v. Nazarov, No. 94 Civ. 2272 (CSH), 1994 WL 702004, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 1994). A district court's authority to stay discovery derives from Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), which permits the court to issue protective orders pertaining to discovery for good cause. See Dome Tech., LLC v. Golden Sands Gen. Contractors, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-1607-VAB, 2017 WL 11577923, at *1 (D. Conn. July 24, 2017). Although it is not the routine practice of this Court to stay discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss, the Court may nevertheless find good cause to stay discovery upon consideration of three factors: (1) "the strength of the dispositive motion[s]"; (2) "the breadth of the discovery sought," including the burden of responding to discovery; and (3) "the prejudice a stay would have on the non-moving party." Metzner v. Quinnipiac Univ., No. 3:20-cv-784 (KAD), 2020 WL 7232551, at *2 (D. Conn. Nov. 12, 2020). For the reasons below, the Court finds good cause to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendants' motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 28, 38, 62, 63, 66, 82).
The first factor, the strength of Defendants' motions to dismiss, weighs heavily in favor of staying discovery. Defendants' motions contain substantial arguments that would dispose of the claims at issue in this action, or at least substantially narrow the scope of Plaintiff's claims. See Josie-Delerme v. Am. Gen. Fin. Corp., No. CV 2008-3166 (NG) (MDG), 2009 WL 497609, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2009); Spencer Trask Software & Info. Servs., LLC v. RPost Int'l Ltd., 206 F.R.D. 367, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (staying discovery where the defendants' motion to dismiss raised "substantial arguments for dismissal of many, if not all, of the claims asserted in the lawsuit"); Rivera v. Heyman, No. 96 Civ. 4489 (PKL), 1997 WL 86394, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1997) (staying discovery after concluding that resolution of a motion to dismiss might "significantly narrow, if not eliminate, the issues remaining in the case"); Metzner, 2020 WL 7232551, at *3-5 (considering the strength of the defendant's motion to dismiss).
The state Defendants assert Eleventh Amendment immunity as a bar to Plaintiff's claims. ECF No. 62-1 at 1. Additionally, the Brock Defendants, Defendant Powell, and the K&L Gates Defendants assert litigation privilege as a defense to Plaintiff's claims. ECF No. 38-1 at 3; ECF No. 63-1 at 3. This is particularly noteworthy because "the Supreme Court has 'repeatedly... stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.'" See Edrei v. Maguire, 892 F.3d 525, 532 (2d Cir. 2018) (alteration in original). Further, the Santander Defendants, the Levesque Defendants, and Defendant Brown all argue that Plaintiff's claims are frivolous. ECF No. 29 at 2; ECF No. 66 at 1; ECF No. 82-1 at 5 (incorporating the Santander Defendants' arguments). Resolution of any one of these i... (truncated) -
Appeal | Filed: February 02, 2024 | Entered: February 06, 2024 Clark v. State of Connecticut et al
Civil Rights: Other | Connecticut
Amended Notice of Appeal
AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL, by Gordon Clark. Document 83 corrected. (Mendez, D)
-
Appeal | Filed: February 06, 2024 | Entered: February 06, 2024 Clark v. State of Connecticut et al
Civil Rights: Other | Connecticut
Clerk's Certificate re: Notice of Appeal
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE RE: INDEX AND RECORD ON APPEAL re: 84 Amended Notice of Appeal. The attached docket sheet is hereby certified as the entire Index/Record on Appeal in this matter and electronically sent to the Court of Appeals, with the exception of any manually filed documents as noted below. Dinah Milton Kinney, Clerk. Documents manually filed not included in this transmission: none. (Mendez, D)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login