Hernandez v. Miller et al

Filing 77

ORDER denying 68 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 72 Motion for Settlement; denying as moot 74 Letter Motion to Stay re: 68 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claim for a Declaratory Judgment., 72 MOTION for Settlement Conference (Judicial Settlement Conference Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.9)., 74 LETTER MOTION to Stay re: 68 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claim for a Declarato ry Judgment., 70 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, 69 Declaration in Support of Motion, 71 Affirmation in Suppor LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time addressed to Judge Vernon S. Broderick from Kerry A. Brennan dated 11/1 5/2022. ; denying as moot 74 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED as premature. Defendants' motion for a stay is therefore moot. Given the posture of the case and Defendants ' opposition, a settlement conference would be unproductive at this time. Plaintiff's motion for a settlement conference is therefore also DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at Docs. 68, 72, and 74. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 11/17/2022) (kv) Modified on 11/17/2022 (kv).

Case 1:22-cv-06964-VSB Document 77 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------X
:
CALEB S. HERNANDEZ,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
:
LARRY MILLER, et al.,
:
:
Defendants. :
:
----------------------------------------------------------X

22-CV-6964 (VSB)
ORDER

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Caleb Hernandez moves for partial summary judgment, (Doc. 68) and for a
settlement conference, (Doc. 72.) Defendants Larry Miller and Eric Eisbrenner request that the
motion for summary judgment be stayed pending the resolution of their motions to dismiss and
Plaintiff’s motion for leave file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 74.) They also oppose a
settlement conference. (Doc. 76.)
While “a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after
the close of all discovery,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b), “courts routinely deny motions for summary
judgment as premature when discovery over relevant matters [are] incomplete . . . .” Doe v.
Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of New York, No. 21 CV 05839 (ER), 2021 WL 4267638, at
*1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2021). Plaintiff has a pending motion to file a second amended complaint
that is not fully briefed, (Doc. 65), and Defendants have motions to dismiss that are either
pending or where briefing has been stayed, (Docs. 3, 16, 45).
It is premature to brief a motion for summary judgment when I have not even determined
which complaint is the operative pleading, and where motions to dismiss are pending.

Case 1:22-cv-06964-VSB Document 77 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED as premature. Defendants’
motion for a stay is therefore moot. Given the posture of the case and Defendants’ opposition, a
settlement conference would be unproductive at this time. Plaintiff’s motion for a settlement
conference is therefore also DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at Docs. 68, 72, and
74.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 17, 2022
New York, New York

Vernon S. Broderick
United States District Judge