Benamou v. Miles
| New York Eastern District Court | |
| Judge: | Orelia E Merchant |
| Referred: | Cheryl L Pollak |
| Case #: | 1:24-cv-04592 |
| Nature of Suit | 440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights |
| Cause | 28:1331 Fed. Question |
| Case Filed: | Jun 21, 2024 |
| Last checked: Wednesday Dec 18, 2024 4:24 AM EST |
|
Defendant
Adina Miles
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Jonathan Benamou
11304 Old Georgetown Road
North Bethesda, MD 20852 |
GPO
Sep 23 2024
ORDER Plaintiff's 2 request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is granted. The Clerk of Court shall issue a summons and the United States Marshals Service is directed to serve the Summons, Complaint, Amended Complaint, and this Order upon Defendant without prepayment of fees. The Clerk of Court shall also send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Orelia E. Merchant on 9/23/2024. (SAD) |
| Docket last updated: 4 hours ago |
| Wednesday, April 09, 2025 | ||
|
utility
Incorrect Case-Document Information
Wed 04/09 11:39 AM
Incorrect Case/Document/Entry Information re51 : Notices of Appearance must be filed using the log in and password of the attorney making the appearance. Counsel is directed to re-file their Notice of Appearance using their own log in and password in order to be listed as counsel and receive electronic notices. (VRM) |
||
|
minutes
Show Cause Hearing
Wed 04/09 1:10 PM
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Orelia E. Merchant: Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on April 9, 2025. Appearances: John Gugliotta, on behalf of Defendant Adina Miles, who was also present. Pro se Plaintiff Jonathan Benamou did not make an appearance. Case called. The Court noted the Plaintiff's absence, and that Plaintiff did not communicate with the Court regarding his absence. Defendant's Counsel stated that Defendant rested on her submissions to the Court. The Court stated that it would take the parties' submissions under advisement and issue a ruling on the docket. (Court Reporter Anthony Frisolone.) (TPL) |
||
|
order
Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Wed 04/09 1:43 PM
ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction44 is denied. The Court held a preliminary injunction hearing on April 9, 2025. Plaintiff did not appear. Therefore, the Court assessed the parties' arguments based on their submissions alone. Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of showing irreparable harm or likelihood of success on the merits of his claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation. A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish, by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that the party is likely to suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction; (3) that the balance of hardships tips in the party's favor; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by the issuance of the injunction. Capstone Logistics Holdings, Inc. v. Navarrete , 736 F. App'x 25, 25-26 (2d Cir. 2018). Plaintiff's submissions,44 ,45 ,47 , fail to establish these elements by pointing to any evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence. For example, Plaintiff recited the elements of his substantive claims but did not provide evidence in support of those claims. Nor has Plaintiff established that any injury he has experienced was caused by Defendant's actions such that an injunction would prevent further injuries of that kind. For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. Plaintiff is reminded that he shall comply with the Court's 4/3/2025 Order directing him to serve his responses to Defendant's discovery requests by May 3, 2025 . Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this case. Ordered by Judge Orelia E. Merchant on 4/9/2025. (SAD) |
||
| Tuesday, April 08, 2025 | ||
|
utility
Terminate Motions (filed in error)
Tue 04/08 9:46 AM
Motions terminated, docketed incorrectly:50 MOTION to Withdraw49 Notice of Appearance (Incorrect Caption) filed by Adina Miles. (VRM) |
||
| Monday, April 07, 2025 | ||
| 52 | 52
respoth
Reply in Opposition
Mon 04/07 3:10 PM
REPLY in Opposition re47 Letter Opposition to Plaintiff's Third (Letter) Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by Adina Miles. (Cohen, Baruch) |
|
| 51 | 51
notice
Notice of Appearance
Mon 04/07 3:07 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Baruch C Cohen on behalf of Adina Miles (notification declined or already on case) (Cohen, Baruch) |
|
| 50 | 50
motion
Withdraw
Mon 04/07 3:06 PM
MOTION to Withdraw49 Notice of Appearance (Incorrect Caption) by Adina Miles. (Cohen, Baruch) |
|
| 49 | 49
notice
Notice of Appearance
Mon 04/07 2:52 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Baruch C Cohen on behalf of Adina Miles (notification declined or already on case) (Cohen, Baruch) |
|
| Thursday, April 03, 2025 | ||
| 48 | 48
misc
Letter
Thu 04/03 12:28 PM
Letter Urgent Scheduling and Appearance Request by Adina Miles (Cohen, Baruch) |
|
|
order
Order on Motion to Stay
Thu 04/03 1:55 PM
Order: Letter Motion to Stay Discovery22 is denied. Plaintiff requests a stay of discovery, asserting that (1) the discovery requests served on him by Defendant are "excessive, harassing, and disproportionate" and (2) discovery should be stayed pending the resolution of dispositive motions. See 22 . However, neither assertion is a basis for granting Plaintiff's request to stay discovery. In support of his first assertion, Plaintiff filed a letter on March 3, 2025, wherein Plaintiff states without specifically identifying a particular request that "the vast majority of Defendant's discovery requests are irrelevant to the claims at issue in this case."32 Plaintiff argues that Defendant's discovery demands "consist of extensive materials unrelated to the core claims in this matter." Id. Moreover, Plaintiff writes that "Defendant's discovery requests appear to be a fishing expedition designed to burden and harass Plaintiff rather than seek information relevant to the case. The requests include inquiries into matters wholly unrelated to the defamation claims at issue, including personal and private information that has no bearing on whether Defendant's statements were defamatory. Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to limit discovery to matters directly relevant to the claims and defenses in this litigation." Id. Plaintiff's objections lack specificity, such that the Court cannot determine which portions of Defendant's discovery requests Plaintiff contends are "unrelated to the core claims" or "excessive, harassing, and disproportionate." As to the assertion that discovery be stayed pending resolution of dispositive motion, in lieu of filing a dispositive motion, Defendant filed an Answer19 . Therefore, no dispositive motion is pending in this case. For these reasons, plaintiff's motion to stay discovery22 is denied. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff's assertion (that the discovery requests propounded on him are "excessively burdensome,"22 ) can be liberally construed as a motion to limit discovery, Plaintiff's motion is denied. To the extent that Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests for admission, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not limit the number of requests for admissions. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Rayat , 21-CV-4777 (LJL), 2022 WL 1606953, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2022) ("Rule 36, unlike other rules, contains no limitations on the number of RFAs that may be served. The question of whether to limit the number of RFAs lies in the discretion of the court and depends on the needs of the case. There is no particular absolute number of Rule 36 requests that will be excessive across every case.") (cleaned up). However, where the court determines that "(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive," the court shall "limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C)(i). Here, Plaintiff does not direct the court to the requests that he believes are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from some other source, nor does Plaintiff specify which requests he believes are irrelevant to any claims or defenses in this action. Defendant asserts that her requests directly correspond to and track each relevant allegation in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, see 24 . Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff objects to the volume of Defendant's interrogatories, those objections are denied because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1) permits parties to serve up to 25 written interrogatories. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to limit discovery is denied without prejudice to renew. Plaintiff shall serve his responses to Defendant's discovery requests on Defendant no later than May 3, 2025 . To the extent that Plaintiff objects to any of Defendant's requests for production of documents and requests for admission, Plaintiff shall state his objections with specificity in response to each individual discovery request. Any resulting requests or motions related to discovery objections are respectfully referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for ruling. Ordered by Judge Orelia E. Merchant on 4/3/2025. (SAD) |
||
|
order
1 - Terminate Hearings ~Util - Set Hearings
Thu 04/03 2:13 PM
RE-SCHEDULING ORDER : In light of Defendant's letter48 , the Preliminary Injunction Hearing scheduled for April 16, 2025 is hereby rescheduled to April 9, 2025 at 11:00 AM. All parties and counsel who wish to appear shall appear in person. Further, the briefing schedule is modified as follows: Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion papers,44 and47 , shall be filed by 3:00 PM on April 7, 2025, and Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be filed by 3:00 PM on April 8, 2025. Ordered by Judge Orelia E. Merchant on 4/3/2025. (TPL) |
||