Commonwealth of Massachusetts

The Trial Court

Probate and Family Court Department

Division: Middlesex Docket No. M15D1994CS

Nudrat Kazmi,
Plaintiff, Motion to Stay Disclosure and Discovery
vs. Pending Court’s Determination of
“Personal” and “Subject Matter” Jurisdiction
Mirza Hassan,

Defendant.

PREAMBLE: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constrains a State's
authority to bind a nonresident defendant to a judgment of its courts. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp.
v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980).

COMES NOW this Defendant, Mirza Hassan, a Pro Se Litigant, that submissions are to be

construed liberally and held to less stringent standards than submissions of lawyers. “Pro se

pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to

be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.” Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411,

421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240 (3rd Cir. 1945); Pucket v. Cox, 456

2nd 233 (6th Cir. 1972).

Plaintiff brought this action on a Complaint for [child support] Modification against the

Defendant seeking to modify an October 4, 2016, void Modification Judgment entered by her

Honor Lee M. Peterson alleging a change in circumstances. "A court cannot confer jurisdiction

where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid [as the Middlesex Probate and Family

Court is currently doing by proceeding on a child support modification case where her Honor Lee

Page 1 of 6
M. Peterson’s Modification Judgment is void]. It is clear and well established law that a void order

can be challenged in any court", Old Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v, McDonough, 204 U. S. 8, 27 S. Ct.

236 (1907).

After the Plaintiff filed her complaint for modification and the Defendant answered the

party’s complaint they have appeared before the Court for numerous conferences. Mass. R. Civil

P. 16 and 26 govern these conferences, but set forth the timing of them in a fairly confusing way.

The purpose of the discovery conference is to develop a mutually acceptable discovery plan which

anticipates and attempts to resolves potential discovery issues. At none of these conferences have

the parties conferred and addressed discovery though the Plaintiff’s counsel filed her “Pre-trial

Memorandum”. There has there has not been a scheduling order issued by the Court pertaining to

discovery. Plaintiff, through her counsel, refuse to confer to consider the nature and basis of their

respective claims and defenses and the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case; make

or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26); discuss any issues about preserving discoverable

information; and develop a proposed discovery plan. On the contrary Plaintiff’s counsel propounded

a Request for Financial Information on April 5,2018 and more detailed request on May 23, 2018 and

a final request on May 23, 2018. Defendant did not answer her request for Financial Information

on the basis that Defendant contends that the court lacks jurisdiction over his person and subject

matter jurisdiction over the action and without jurisdiction that the proceedings should not continue.

At a conference hearing on May 10, 2018, his Honor Paul Cronan did issue an order from the bench

that this Defendant would be sanctioned if he did not provided financial statements to the Court and

opposing counsel before the July 17, 2017, pre-trial hearing. Defendant avoiding sanctions

reluctantly complied with his Honor Paul Cronan’s order to produce said financial statements. On

Page 2 of 6
April 5, 2018, the Plaintiff’s attorney filed a “Motion for Attorney Fees in the Amount of $700. -“

that his Honor Paul Cronan denied.

In most cases, the parties may not seek discovery from any source before they have conferred

as required by Rule 26. Rule 16 generally requires the court to issue a scheduling order. Unless the

court finds good cause for delay, that order should be issued within 90 days after this Defendant was

served. The Scheduling Notice would set forth the timing of initial disclosures, modify the extent

of discovery, provide for the discovery of electronically stored information, include agreements on

privileged or protected material, set dates for pretrial conferences, and require a conference with the

judge prior to filing a motion relating to discovery. The said lack of said Scheduling Notice has

prejudiced this Defendant in preparation for his defense and objections to discoverable material.

A motion to stay discovery pending determination of a dispositive motion is an appropriate

exercise of this court’s discretion. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–255 (1936).

The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the

disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and

for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh

competing interests and maintain an even balance. Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. United States, 282 U.S.

760, 763 (1931).

The underlying principle governing whether to grant or deny a stay is that “[t]he right to

proceed in court should not be denied except under the most extreme circumstances.” Commodity

Futures Trading Comm’n v. Chilcott Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., 713 F.2d 1477, 1484 (10th Cir. 1983)

Courts have routinely recognized that discovery may be inappropriate where the court’s

jurisdiction is at issue. Gilbert v. Ferry, 401 F.3d 411, 415–16 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding stay

Page 3 of 6
permissible pending ruling on a dispositive motion asserting a jurisdictional issue); Democratic

Republic of Congo v. FG Hemisphere Assocs., LLC, 508 F.3d 1062, 1064 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (noting

that the reason jurisdictional defenses should be raised at the outset is to avoid unnecessary litigation

[as Defendant has done]).

A stay pending resolution of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is

particularly appropriate because the basis of the motion is that the complaint should not proceed in

this forum as a matter of constitutional due process. In addition, this Honorable Court is given broad

discretion to stay discovery pending its decision on a motion challenging the legal sufficiency of a

claim.

CONCLUSION

Under the circumstances of this case, the Court should stay discovery pending the Court’s

resolution of Defendant’s dispositive motions to dismiss. If the Court grants any part of Defendant’s

motion to dismiss, it will entirely eliminate the need for discovery. A stay might also save the Court

time it would otherwise lose adjudicating discovery disputes relating to ultimately unmeritorious

claims. To allow discovery in this case to go forward and then have all or part of Defendant’s motion

to dismiss granted would cause exactly the sort of waste that the Court seeks to avoid.

“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court

[including state courts] to control the disposition of the causes of its docket with economy of time

and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55

(1936).

Even if the Court were to determine that the Defendant’s stay of discovery does not apply

to Defendant’s claims against Plaintiff, the Court should nonetheless exercise its discretion to grant

Page 4 of 6
a stay of discovery pursuant to Rule 26(c). Courts frequently stay discovery pending resolution of

motions to dismiss to avoid the burden and expense of discovery that the decision may render

unnecessary. This is particularly favored here because Defendant has serious grounds for dismissal

of Plaintiff’s Complaint for Modification for lack of both “personal” and “subject matter”

jurisdiction. A stay of discovery pending the adjudication of motions to dismiss will avoid

burdening Defendant with expensive and potentially unnecessary discovery prior to this Court

determining the legal sufficiency of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and will avoid burdening the parties and

the Court with resolving discovery disputes on common issues before they become ripe as to the

Defendant.

WHEREFORE For all the foregoing reasons, Defendant, Mirza Hassan, respectfully

requests that this Court enter an order staying discovery pending the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s

respective Notice and/or Motion to dismiss;

FURTHER, Defendant respectfully request that this Court enter a protective order pursuant

to Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(c) staying discovery until after the pending Motions seeking dismissal for

lack of jurisdiction are resolved and preliminary objections are decided;

and, other relief this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

DATED this ______ day of August, 2018. Respectfully Submitted,

____________________________
Mirza Hassan
Defendant/Pro Se
1320 Prospect Drive
Wilmington, DE 19809

Page 5 of 6
 CERTIFICATION OF MAILING
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this, the ____ day of August, 2018, a true and accurate
copy of the foregoing Defendant’s Motion to Stay Disclosure and Discovery Pending Court’s
Determination of “Personal” and “Subject Matter”jurisdiction was served upon Plaintiff’s
counsel, via Electronic Email and by hand delivery to:

Sandra Samantha Martin Coursey. Esquire

41 North Rd, Suite 205
Bedford, MA, 01730-1037

____________________________
Mirza Hassan
Defendant/Pro Se

Page 6 of 6