Brown v. Dell Technologies, Inc.
| Claud Brown |
| Dell Technologies, Inc. |
| 3:2022cv01498 |
| November 23, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Vanessa L Bryant |
| Robert M Spector |
| Other Statutes: Arbitration |
| 09 U.S.C. ยง 0010 Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 12, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
ORDER granting #14 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #12 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) until February 11, 2023 for good cause shown and on Defendant's consent. See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(b). Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 01/12/2023. (Lee, Elisabeth)
|
| Filing 14 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #12 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) until February 11, 2023 by Claud Brown. (Reilly, Michael) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE RE: MOTION TO DISMISS. The parties are reminded that the pendency of a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery, except in cases covered by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. See Brooks v. Macy's, Inc., No. 10-CIV-5304, 2010 WL 5297756, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2010) (collecting cases), reh'g denied, No. 10-CIV-5304, 2011 WL 1362191 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2011); see also Moran v. Flaherty, No. 92-CV-3200, 1992 WL 276913, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 1992). The court may enter a stay of discovery in its discretion upon a showing [as distinguished from an assertion] of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see also Integrated Sys. & Power, Inc. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. , No. 09-CIV-5874, 2009 WL 2777076, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2009); accord Ellington Credit Fund, Ltd. v. Select Portfolio Servs., Inc. , No. 08-CV-2437, 2009 WL 274483, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2009). In determining whether good cause exists, the court considers several factors including: (1) whether a defendant has made a strong showing that the plaintiff's claim is unmeritorious, (2) the breadth of discovery and the burden of responding to it, and (3) the risk of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the stay. Negrete v. Citibank, N.A., No. 15-CV-7250, 2015 WL 8207466, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2015). Other factors include the nature of the case, whether dismissal will resolve the case, effect of dismissal on the scope of discovery, age of the case, complexity of discovery needed, remedy sought, extensions previously granted, parties' diligence, judicial efficiency, and other appropriate factors. Discovery in this case is NOT stayed. Accordingly, any party moving to stay discovery must demonstrate, as oppose to assert, the Court should exercise its discretion to stay the case. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 12-22-2022. (Shafer, J.) |
| Filing 12 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) by Dell Technologies, Inc..Responses due by 1/12/2023 (D'Agostino, Michael) |
| Filing 11 Corporate Disclosure Statement Rule 7.1 by Dell Technologies, Inc.. (D'Agostino, Michael) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael C. D'Agostino on behalf of Dell Technologies, Inc. (D'Agostino, Michael) |
| Filing 9 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Dell Technologies, Inc., filed by Claud Brown.(Reilly, Michael) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER re Unsigned Complaint. Because the complaint is unsigned, it does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) ("Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's nameor by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.... The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.") Furthermore, Local Rule 10 requires that the complaint and all other pleadings be signed by the person or attorney who prepared the complaint or other pleading and include the date the document was prepared. See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 10. Accordingly, within twenty-one days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that is signed and dated. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/28/2022. (Lee, Elisabeth)
|
| Filing 7 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Dell Technologies, Inc.* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Michael John Reilly* *Cicchiello & Cicchiello, LLP* *364 Franklin Avenue* *Hartford, CT 06114*. (Shafer, J.) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Counsel initiating this action is responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of 2 Notice re: Disclosure Statement, #5 Order Re: Chambers Practices, #1 Complaint, #3 Standing Protective Order, and #4 Electronic Filing Order. Signed by Clerk on 11-28-2022. (Shafer, J.) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER RE: Judge's Chambers Practices. Counsel are directed to read and comply with the Chambers Practices and Standing Orders prior to filing any document. So ordered. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11-23-2022. (Shafer, J.)
|
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11-23-2022. (Shafer, J.)
|
|
Filing 3
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11-23-2022. (Shafer, J.) Modified to correct file date on 11-28-2022 (Shafer, J.).
|
| Filing 2 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Local Rule 7.1, any nongovernmental corporate party must electronically file a disclosure statement that identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock or states that there is no such corporation. Such disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 11/23/22.(Hushin, Z.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Dell Technologies, Inc. ( Filing fee $402 receipt number ACTDC-7148192.), filed by Claud Brown.(Reilly, Michael) |
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Dell Technologies, Inc.. (Reilly, Michael) |
| Judge Vanessa L. Bryant and Judge Robert M. Spector added. (Hushin, Z.) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Brown v. Dell Technologies, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Claud Brown | |
| Represented By: | Michael John Reilly |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Dell Technologies, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Michael C. D'Agostino |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
