Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 101 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Nov. 19, 2024)
in In federal court, area of law, such as the Private Securities the absence of a statute to a certain Litigation specific Reform Act at the hling of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary issue in Camelot, In NewYork courts, where the trend judgment ordinarily does not automatically stay discovery.
adequately As to the former, assertion of the privilege is an insulucient against "[t]he self-incrirnination 59 AD3d250, 250 discovery" I LP v Netschi, Credit Opportunities basis for precluding (Fortress Inc. v DeCicco, 302 AD2d48, $2-53 [1st Dept 2002].
[Ist Dept 2009], citing Access Capital, that a coun is not required to stay a civil law is clear action until a pending related "[t}he Further, has been terminated so that a party can avoid the difficulty of choosing prosecution criminal between presenting evidence in his or her own behalf'and his or her Fifth Amendment asserting (Campbell v NewYork City Trans.
the broad language of CPLR2201, this court by these is constrained Here, despite pmsecution where there stay based on pending criminal not to grant a discretionary holdings is has identity fact with the civil no argument or evidenec that such prosecution of party or action.
to meet and confer within 20 days the court encourages all parties fraught In this context, of entry of this order and make a diligent, good-faith to a reasonable discovery to stipulate effort the deadline to pmduce balances the need to proceed with the reality schedule that equitably that in February could be on the eve of, It maybe if not beyond, the date the appeals are decided.
Cite Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 101 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Nov. 19, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 97 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Nov. 19, 2024)
the legal sufficicney of the complaint, this purpose has been served.” (Camelot Event Driven Fund v Morgan Sianley & Co, LLC, 221 AD3d 403, 404 [1st Dept 2023],) In federal court, in the absence ofa statute specific to a certain arca of law, such as the Private Securities J iligation Reform Actat issue in Camelot, the liling cf a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment ordinarily does not automatically stay discovery.
Yet “a court has broad discretion to grant a stay in order to avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudicaions, duplication of proof and potential waste ofjudicial resources” (215 W. 84th St Owner LLC v Ozsu, 209 AIN3d 401, 41 [1st Dept 2022).
Where, as here, the issues forming the basis of the request [or a slay are those raisedin a pending appeal of an order from the same case,it is the policy of this court to respectfully reler any decision as to whether to prant a discretionary stay to the Appellate Division, First Department, under either CPLR 2201 or 5519{c), as appropriate (sec c.g.
Further, “[t]he law is clear that a cour is net required to stay a civil action until a pending related criminal prosecution has been terminated so that a party can avoid the difficulty of choosing between presenting evidence in his or her own behalf and asserting his or her Fiflh Amendment rights” (Campbell vy New York City Trans.
In this fraught context, the court cncouragesall parties to meet and confer within 20 days of entry ofthis order and make a diligent, good-latth effort io stipulate to a reasonable discovery schedule that equitably balances the need to proceed with the reality that the deadline to produce in February could be on the eve of, if not beyond, the date the appeals are decided.
Cite Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 97 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Nov. 19, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 98 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Nov. 19, 2024)
the legal sufficicney of the complaint, this purpose has been served.” (Camelot Event Driven Fund v Morgan Sianley & Co, LLC, 221 AD3d 403, 404 [1st Dept 2023],) In federal court, in the absence ofa statute specific to a certain arca of law, such as the Private Securities J iligation Reform Actat issue in Camelot, the liling cf a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment ordinarily does not automatically stay discovery.
Yet “a court has broad discretion to grant a stay in order to avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudicaions, duplication of proof and potential waste ofjudicial resources” (215 W. 84th St Owner LLC v Ozsu, 209 AIN3d 401, 41 [1st Dept 2022).
Where, as here, the issues forming the basis of the request [or a slay are those raisedin a pending appeal of an order from the same case,it is the policy of this court to respectfully reler any decision as to whether to prant a discretionary stay to the Appellate Division, First Department, under either CPLR 2201 or 5519{c), as appropriate (sec c.g.
Further, “[t]he law is clear that a cour is net required to stay a civil action until a pending related criminal prosecution has been terminated so that a party can avoid the difficulty of choosing between presenting evidence in his or her own behalf and asserting his or her Fiflh Amendment rights” (Campbell vy New York City Trans.
In this fraught context, the court cncouragesall parties to meet and confer within 20 days of entry ofthis order and make a diligent, good-latth effort io stipulate to a reasonable discovery schedule that equitably balances the need to proceed with the reality that the deadline to produce in February could be on the eve of, if not beyond, the date the appeals are decided.
Cite Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 98 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Nov. 19, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 96 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Nov. 19, 2024)
the legal sufficicney of the complaint, this purpose has been served.” (Camelot Event Driven Fund v Morgan Sianley & Co, LLC, 221 AD3d 403, 404 [1st Dept 2023],) In federal court, in the absence ofa statute specific to a certain arca of law, such as the Private Securities J iligation Reform Actat issue in Camelot, the liling cf a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment ordinarily does not automatically stay discovery.
Yet “a court has broad discretion to grant a stay in order to avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudicaions, duplication of proof and potential waste ofjudicial resources” (215 W. 84th St Owner LLC v Ozsu, 209 AIN3d 401, 41 [1st Dept 2022).
Where, as here, the issues forming the basis of the request [or a slay are those raisedin a pending appeal of an order from the same case,it is the policy of this court to respectfully reler any decision as to whether to prant a discretionary stay to the Appellate Division, First Department, under either CPLR 2201 or 5519{c), as appropriate (sec c.g.
Further, “[t]he law is clear that a cour is net required to stay a civil action until a pending related criminal prosecution has been terminated so that a party can avoid the difficulty of choosing between presenting evidence in his or her own behalf and asserting his or her Fiflh Amendment rights” (Campbell vy New York City Trans.
In this fraught context, the court cncouragesall parties to meet and confer within 20 days of entry ofthis order and make a diligent, good-latth effort io stipulate to a reasonable discovery schedule that equitably balances the need to proceed with the reality that the deadline to produce in February could be on the eve of, if not beyond, the date the appeals are decided.
Cite Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 96 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Nov. 19, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 91 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Nov. 18, 2024)
On 4 pre-answer motion to dismiss, “[t]he purpose of the statutory stay is lo prevent abusive, expensive discovery in frivolous lawsuits by postponing discevery until after the Court has sustained the legal sufficicacy of the complaint.
While eCourts shows that the motions were “admin[istralively] adjourned pending reassignment,” such adjourtinents relate not to the submission of papers as noticed by parties but to the scheduling of oral arzumentor the disposition of mations.
Yet “a court has broad discretion fo grant a stay in order to avoid the nsk of inconsistent adjudications, duplication of proof and potential waste ofjudicial resources” (215 W. 84th St Owner LLC v Ovau, 209 AD3d 401, 401 [1st Dept 2022)).
no. 007, movani Weinstcin argues, in ihe main, 1) that Weinstein will be prejudiced by having to assert his constitulional privilege against sclf-incrimination in this case; and 2) that the healih of Wemstcin is such that he cannot participate adequately in his defense.
In this fraught context, the court encouragesall parties to mect and confer within 20 days of entry of this order and makea diligent, good-faith effort to stipulate to a reasonable discovery schedule thal equitably balances the need to proceed with the reality that the deadline to produce in February could be on the eve of, if not beyond, the date the appeals are decided.
Cite Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 91 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Nov. 18, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 92 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Nov. 18, 2024)
On 4 pre-answer motion to dismiss, “[t]he purpose of the statutory stay is lo prevent abusive, expensive discovery in frivolous lawsuits by postponing discevery until after the Court has sustained the legal sufficicacy of the complaint.
While eCourts shows that the motions were “admin[istralively] adjourned pending reassignment,” such adjourtinents relate not to the submission of papers as noticed by parties but to the scheduling of oral arzumentor the disposition of mations.
Yet “a court has broad discretion fo grant a stay in order to avoid the nsk of inconsistent adjudications, duplication of proof and potential waste ofjudicial resources” (215 W. 84th St Owner LLC v Ovau, 209 AD3d 401, 401 [1st Dept 2022)).
no. 007, movani Weinstcin argues, in ihe main, 1) that Weinstein will be prejudiced by having to assert his constitulional privilege against sclf-incrimination in this case; and 2) that the healih of Wemstcin is such that he cannot participate adequately in his defense.
In this fraught context, the court encouragesall parties to mect and confer within 20 days of entry of this order and makea diligent, good-faith effort to stipulate to a reasonable discovery schedule thal equitably balances the need to proceed with the reality that the deadline to produce in February could be on the eve of, if not beyond, the date the appeals are decided.
Cite Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 92 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Nov. 18, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 90 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Nov. 18, 2024)
On 4 pre-answer motion to dismiss, “[t]he purpose of the statutory stay is lo prevent abusive, expensive discovery in frivolous lawsuits by postponing discevery until after the Court has sustained the legal sufficicacy of the complaint.
While eCourts shows that the motions were “admin[istralively] adjourned pending reassignment,” such adjourtinents relate not to the submission of papers as noticed by parties but to the scheduling of oral arzumentor the disposition of mations.
Yet “a court has broad discretion fo grant a stay in order to avoid the nsk of inconsistent adjudications, duplication of proof and potential waste ofjudicial resources” (215 W. 84th St Owner LLC v Ovau, 209 AD3d 401, 401 [1st Dept 2022)).
no. 007, movani Weinstcin argues, in ihe main, 1) that Weinstein will be prejudiced by having to assert his constitulional privilege against sclf-incrimination in this case; and 2) that the healih of Wemstcin is such that he cannot participate adequately in his defense.
In this fraught context, the court encouragesall parties to mect and confer within 20 days of entry of this order and makea diligent, good-faith effort to stipulate to a reasonable discovery schedule thal equitably balances the need to proceed with the reality that the deadline to produce in February could be on the eve of, if not beyond, the date the appeals are decided.
Cite Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 90 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Nov. 18, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
In Re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation, 1:23-md-03076, No. 774 (S.D.Fla. Nov. 13, 2024)
Motion to File Amended ComplaintGranted
The policy of the federal rules is to permit liberal amendment to facilitate determination of claims on the merits and to prevent litigation from becoming a technical exercise in the fine points of pleading.
Case 1:23-md-03076-KMM Document 774 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2024 Page 2 of 4 is a substantial reason to deny leave to amend, the discretion of the district court is not broad enough to permit denial.
The Court finds that Moonstone’s futility arguments do not provide a basis for denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2).
For Moonstone to prevail on its futility argument, it must show that the Proposed Amended Complaint is “subject to dismissal.” Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 1310, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999).
However, arguments that a proposed Case 1:23-md-03076-KMM Document 774 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2024 Page 3 of 4 amendment is futile or fails to remedy defects present in an earlier complaint “are matters best addressed in a motion to dismiss rather than a basis to deny leave to amend.” Benzion v. Vivint, Inc., No. 12-61826-CIV, 2013 WL 12014439, at *3 (S.D.
Cite Document
In Re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation, 1:23-md-03076, No. 774 (S.D.Fla. Nov. 13, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
In Re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation, 1:23-md-03076, No. 773 (S.D.Fla. Nov. 13, 2024)
Motion to File Amended ComplaintGranted
The policy of the federal rules is to permit liberal amendment to facilitate determination of claims on the merits and to prevent litigation from becoming a technical exercise in the fine points of pleading.
The Multinational VC Defendants further argue that the deletion of Case 1:23-md-03076-KMM Document 773 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2024 Page 3 of 4 certain paragraphs in the Proposed Amended Complaint was done in bad faith to strategically excise allegations that undercut Plaintiffs’ claims.
The Court finds that the Multinational VC Defendants’ futility arguments do not provide a basis for denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2).
To prevail on their futility arguments, the Multinational VC Defendants must show that the Proposed Amended Complaint is “subject to dismissal.” Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 1310, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999).
However, arguments that a proposed amendment is futile or fails to remedy defects present in an earlier complaint “are matters best addressed in a motion to dismiss rather than a basis to deny leave to amend.” Benzion v. Vivint, Inc., No. 12-61826-CIV, 2013 WL 12014439, at *3 (S.D.
Cite Document
In Re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation, 1:23-md-03076, No. 773 (S.D.Fla. Nov. 13, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
In Re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation, 1:23-md-03076, No. 770 (S.D.Fla. Nov. 1, 2024)
Cite Document
In Re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation, 1:23-md-03076, No. 770 (S.D.Fla. Nov. 1, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 78 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Oct. 31, 2024)
Cite Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 78 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Oct. 31, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 74 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Oct. 29, 2024)
Cite Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 74 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Oct. 29, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
Shahbaz v. Arista Networks, Inc., 2:24-cv-00431, No. 35 (E.D.Cal. Oct. 1, 2024)
Cite Document
Shahbaz v. Arista Networks, Inc., 2:24-cv-00431, No. 35 (E.D.Cal. Oct. 1, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Docket
5:17-cv-01799,
California Central District Court
(Sept. 5, 2017)
Judge Jesus G. Bernal,
presiding,
Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato
Civil Rights - Other
Cite Docket
Aiden Stockman et al v. Donald J. Trump et al, 5:17-cv-01799 (C.D.Cal.)
+ More Snippets
Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 57 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Sep. 6, 2024)
Cite Document
Julia Ormond v. Harvey Weinstein et al, 952107/2023, 57 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County Sep. 6, 2024)
+ More Snippets
