Edward B. Hubbuch v. Yoel Kohn et al.

S.D. New York

Edward B. Hubbuch v. Yoel Kohn et al.

DecidedDecember 16, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-04924

StatusUnknown

This text of Edward B. Hubbuch v. Yoel Kohn et al. (Edward B. Hubbuch v. Yoel Kohn et al.) 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

Edward B. Hubbuch v. Yoel Kohn et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : EDWARD B. HUBBUCH, : : Plaintiff, : : 25-CV-4924 (JMF) -v- : : MEMORANDUM OPINION YOEL KOHN et al., : AND ORDER : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On December 9, 2025, Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered the parties to appear for a conference on January 7, 2026, to discuss and finalize a proposed discovery and pretrial schedule. ECF No. 86. The next day, Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel, filed a motion for partial summary judgment. ECF No. 88. Absent extraordinary circumstances, however, summary judgment motion practice is generally not appropriate before discovery has taken place. See Disabled in Action of Metro. N.Y. v. Trump Int’l Hotel & Tower, No. 01-CV- 5518, 2003 WL 1751785, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2003) (“Plaintiffs have not obtained discovery from defendant related to their claims and thus their claims are not ripe for summary adjudication.”); Access 4 All, Inc. v. Trump Int’l Hotel & Tower Condo., 458 F. Supp. 2d 160, 165 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“[S]ummary judgment is inappropriate before the parties have had an opportunity for discovery.”); Gyecsek v. J.P. Hogan Coring & Sawing, Corp., No. 18-CV-1023 (PAC), 2019 WL 1059998, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2019) (“It is premature to consider a motion for summary judgment at this time without the benefit of discovery.”). Accordingly, and given the stage of this case, Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, ECF No. 88, is hereby DENIED without prejudice to renewal at an appropriate stage of the case. Defendants’ motion to set a briefing schedule for the motion, ECF No. 90, and Plaintiffs request for an expedited briefing schedule, ECF No. 91, are thus DENIED as moot. By separate Amended Order of Reference today, the Court is broadening the scope of the reference to Magistrate Judge Cave to include dispositive motions. Accordingly, all future requests and motions should be directed to Magistrate Judge Cave. This includes Defendants’ request for an adjournment of the January 7, 2026 conference, which should be re-filed and addressed to Magistrate Judge Cave. ECF No. 90. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 88, 90, and 91.

SO ORDERED. Dated: December 16, 2025 New York, New York ESSE URMAN nited States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : EDWARD B. HUBBUCH, : : Plaintiff, : : 25-CV-4924 (JMF) -v- : : MEMORANDUM OPINION YOEL KOHN et al., : AND ORDER : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On December 9, 2025, Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered the parties to appear for a conference on January 7, 2026, to discuss and finalize a proposed discovery and pretrial schedule. ECF No. 86. The next day, Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel, filed a motion for partial summary judgment. ECF No. 88. Absent extraordinary circumstances, however, summary judgment motion practice is generally not appropriate before discovery has taken place. See Disabled in Action of Metro. N.Y. v. Trump Int’l Hotel & Tower, No. 01-CV- 5518, 2003 WL 1751785, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2003) (“Plaintiffs have not obtained discovery from defendant related to their claims and thus their claims are not ripe for summary adjudication.”); Access 4 All, Inc. v. Trump Int’l Hotel & Tower Condo., 458 F. Supp. 2d 160, 165 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“[S]ummary judgment is inappropriate before the parties have had an opportunity for discovery.”); Gyecsek v. J.P. Hogan Coring & Sawing, Corp., No. 18-CV-1023 (PAC), 2019 WL 1059998, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2019) (“It is premature to consider a motion for summary judgment at this time without the benefit of discovery.”). Accordingly, and given the stage of this case, Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, ECF No. 88, is hereby DENIED without prejudice to renewal at an appropriate stage of the case. Defendants’ motion to set a briefing schedule for the motion, ECF No. 90, and Plaintiffs request for an expedited briefing schedule, ECF No. 91, are thus DENIED as moot. By separate Amended Order of Reference today, the Court is broadening the scope of the reference to Magistrate Judge Cave to include dispositive motions. Accordingly, all future requests and motions should be directed to Magistrate Judge Cave. This includes Defendants’ request for an adjournment of the January 7, 2026 conference, which should be re-filed and addressed to Magistrate Judge Cave. ECF No. 90. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 88, 90, and 91.

SO ORDERED. Dated: December 16, 2025 New York, New York ESSE URMAN nited States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Edward B. Hubbuch v. Yoel Kohn et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-b-hubbuch-v-yoel-kohn-et-al-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack