Abalu v. Society of Human Resource Management

S.D. New York

Abalu v. Society of Human Resource Management

DecidedDecember 13, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-05917

StatusUnknown

This text of Abalu v. Society of Human Resource Management (Abalu v. Society of Human Resource Management) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abalu v. Society of Human Resource Management, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: monn nrc nanan KK DATE FILED:_ 12/13/24 OSHOKE ABALU, : Plaintiff, : : 24-cv-5917 (LJL) -V- : : ORDER SOCIETY OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, : JENNIFER MCCOLLUM, : Defendants. :

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: This Order memorializes rulings made at the telephonic conference held today, December 13, 2024. For the reasons stated at the conference, Defendants’ motion to stay discovery, Dkt. No. 36, is granted, without prejudice to Plaintiff moving to vacate the stay if by December 27, 2024, the social media postings identified at the conference have not been taken down. In granting a motion to stay discovery, “Courts consider: (1) [the] breadth of discovery sought, (2) any prejudice that would result, and (3) the strength of the motion.” Robbins v. Candy Digital Inc., 2024 WL 2221362, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2024) (quoting Hong Leong Fin. Ltd. (Sing.) v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., 297 F.R.D. 69, 72 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)). Given the length of the complaint and Plaintiffs statements about the discovery she seeks, Dkt. No. 36 at 3, discovery here is likely to be broad. If the social media postings are taken down, the risk of prejudice to Plaintiff is minimal. The arguments made in Defendants’ motions to dismiss regarding improper venue, SHRM’s successor liability for Linkage’s actions, and McCollum’s individual liability are strong. The strength of these arguments weighs heavily in favor of granting a stay of

discovery. Therefore, the Court grants the motion to stay discovery. If the social media postings are not taken down, the risk of prejudice may change. Therefore, if the postings are not taken down by December 27, 2024, Plaintiff may submit a motion to vacate the stay of discovery. Given that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, her deadline to submit an amended complaint is extended to January 3, 2025. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 36. SO ORDERED. ye il Dated: December 13, 2024 we MOE sa New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: monn nrc nanan KK DATE FILED:_ 12/13/24 OSHOKE ABALU, : Plaintiff, : : 24-cv-5917 (LJL) -V- : : ORDER SOCIETY OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, : JENNIFER MCCOLLUM, : Defendants. :

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: This Order memorializes rulings made at the telephonic conference held today, December 13, 2024. For the reasons stated at the conference, Defendants’ motion to stay discovery, Dkt. No. 36, is granted, without prejudice to Plaintiff moving to vacate the stay if by December 27, 2024, the social media postings identified at the conference have not been taken down. In granting a motion to stay discovery, “Courts consider: (1) [the] breadth of discovery sought, (2) any prejudice that would result, and (3) the strength of the motion.” Robbins v. Candy Digital Inc., 2024 WL 2221362, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2024) (quoting Hong Leong Fin. Ltd. (Sing.) v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., 297 F.R.D. 69, 72 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)). Given the length of the complaint and Plaintiffs statements about the discovery she seeks, Dkt. No. 36 at 3, discovery here is likely to be broad. If the social media postings are taken down, the risk of prejudice to Plaintiff is minimal. The arguments made in Defendants’ motions to dismiss regarding improper venue, SHRM’s successor liability for Linkage’s actions, and McCollum’s individual liability are strong. The strength of these arguments weighs heavily in favor of granting a stay of

discovery. Therefore, the Court grants the motion to stay discovery. If the social media postings are not taken down, the risk of prejudice may change. Therefore, if the postings are not taken down by December 27, 2024, Plaintiff may submit a motion to vacate the stay of discovery. Given that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, her deadline to submit an amended complaint is extended to January 3, 2025. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 36. SO ORDERED. ye il Dated: December 13, 2024 we MOE sa New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Abalu v. Society of Human Resource Management, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abalu-v-society-of-human-resource-management-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack