Konrad v. Epley et al

Filing 82

ORDER denying 80 Motion to Compel: Plaintiff's application with respect to service of process on defendant, William Brown, is denied as moot, since he has been served at his address in New Canaan, Connecticut. The Court will treat the remai ning aspect of plaintiff's April 14, 2013 submission as a request for reconsideration of the sua sponte stay of discovery imposed pending the outcome of defendants' motions to dismiss. Reconsideration is granted, and on such reconsideratio n the original determination to stay all discovery on December 7, 2012 is re-affirmed. SEE Order for further details. Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this Order on pro se defendant William Brown upon receipt. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge E. Thomas Boyle on 4/23/2013. (c/m) (Minerva, Deanna)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
EVELYN KONRAD,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

-against-

CV 12-4021 (JFB)(ETB)

MARK EPLEY, Individually and in his capacity
as Major of the Village of Southampton, PAUL
ROBINSON, Individually and as former Trustee of the
Village of Southampton, ELBERT W. ROBINSON, JR.,
Individually and in his capacity as Assistant Attorney for the
Village of Southampton, WILLIAM BROWN, resident of the
Rosko Place subdivision, in the Village of Southampton,
DENIS GUERIN, owner of a property in the Rosko Place
subdivision, in the Southampton Village, DONALD QUINTIN
and MELINDA QUINTIN, owners of a property in the Rosko
Place subdivision in the Village of Southampton,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The plaintiff’s pro se application with respect to service of process on defendant,
William Brown, is denied as moot, since he has been served at his address in New Canaan,
Connecticut.
I will treat the remaining aspect of the plaintiff’s April 14, 2013 submission as a request
for reconsideration of the sua sponte stay of discovery imposed pending the outcome of
defendants’ motions to dismiss. Reconsideration is granted, and on such reconsideration the
original determination to stay all discovery on December 7, 2012 is re-affirmed. Based on the
allegations in the Complaint and counsels’ representations made at the initial conference, there
are substantial issues of res judicata which arise from the pro se plaintiff’s prior litigation in the
state courts. In addition, the defendants raise issues of legislative immunity and the applicable
-1-

statute of limitations. At the same time, the plaintiff is seeking to amend her Complaint to add
additional parties. For all these reasons, in the exercise of discretion under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(c), the court imposed the sua sponte stay, pending the outcome of those
motions.
This will avoid any unnecessary duplication of efforts should additional parties be
added. It will also avoid any unnecessary litigation costs to any of the parties in the event that
any causes of action or the entire Complaint are dismissed.
Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this Order on pro se defendant William Brown
upon receipt.

SO ORDERED:
Dated: Central Islip, New York
April 23, 2013

/s/ E. Thomas Boyle
E. THOMAS BOYLE
United States Magistrate Judge

-2-