Febrianti v. NYC Health & Hospitals

Opinion

VUSEL SUNT DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC DATE FILED: 4/30/2025 Erica Febrianti, Plaintiff, 1:23-cv-06175 (JLR) (SDA) -against- ORDER NYC Health & Hospitals and City of New York, Defendants.

STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge: Following an Initial Pretrial Conference, for which only Defendants appeared, and for the reasons stated on the record, it is hereby Ordered as follows: 1. Plaintiff shall file her opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant City of New York (the “City”) (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 93) no later than May 30, 2025. The City file any reply no later than June 13, 2025. 2. Discovery with respect to the City is stayed pending decision on the motion to dismiss. Having reviewed the City’s motion, the Court, in its discretion, finds good cause for a stay. See Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Khaim, 755 F. Supp. 3d 285, 294 (E.D.N.Y. 2024) (“The Court possesses inherent authority to issue a protective order sua sponte, available if the record contains ample good cause therefor.”) (cleaned up). 3. The proposed case management plan is approved with respect to Defendant NYC Health & Hospitals. The Court separately shall enter the Case Management Plan on the ECF docket.

4. Plaintiff is reminded that it is her responsibility to comply with Court Orders, including Orders to appear for Court conferences, and “diligently prosecute h[er] case.” Murray v. Bouck, No. 19-CV-00317 (MKV), 2020 WL 6381935, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2020). Failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions up to an including a recommendation to the District Judge that her case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Court is aware of a letter filed on the docket in Plaintiff's pending interlocutory appeal in this action (Case No. 25-436) stating that Plaintiffs new mailing address is 332 Broadway, Staten Island, NY 10310. As a courtesy, a copy of this Order and the Case Management Plan will be mailed to Plaintiff by Chambers. Plaintiff is reminded that it is her responsibility to maintain an accurate address with the Court. See Sturgis v. DeMarco, No. 13-CV-02125 (SJF), 2013 WL 3288308, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 27, 2013) (“The duty to inform the Court and defendants of any change of address is an obligation that rests with all pro se plaintiffs.”) (cleaned up). SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York April 30, 2025 frist A, Cann STEWART D. AARON United States Magistrate Judge