That's What She Said, Inc. v. Gutter Games, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-04230
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In That’s What She Said v. Gutter Games, Judge Aaron ordered updates about a possible appeal withdrawal and its effect on the court’s jurisdiction.
The plaintiff and defendants were required to provide the specified letters and positions concerning the pending appeal and the schedule for the referred inquest.
What happened
In That’s What She Said, Inc. v. Gutter Games, Inc., the court ordered the plaintiff to tell the court whether it would withdraw its pending appeal.
The plaintiff had to file that update by September 6, 2024. If it withdrew the appeal, the parties had to submit a joint letter by September 13 with a revised schedule for the referred inquest. If it did not withdraw the appeal, they had to state their positions on whether the appeal removed the court’s authority to continue handling the matter.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered this procedural order after a telephone conference. The order did not decide the appeal, the court’s jurisdiction, or the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- That's What She Said, Inc. v. Gutter Games, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04230
- Katherine Failla
- Sept. 3, 2024
Background
After a telephone conference, the court addressed the plaintiff’s pending appeal and the effect that appeal might have on the district court proceedings. The order does not describe the underlying claims or decide their merits.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiff to file a letter by September 6, 2024, stating whether it would withdraw the pending appeal.
The court set two possible next steps:
- If the plaintiff withdrew the appeal, the parties had to file a joint letter by September 13, 2024, providing a revised briefing schedule for the referred inquest. - If the plaintiff did not withdraw the appeal, the parties had to file a joint letter by September 13, 2024, stating their respective positions on whether the pending appeal deprived the district court of jurisdiction, meaning its authority to continue acting in the matter.
The order also noted that the parties might wish to review cited decisions concerning withdrawal of an appeal and the effect of an appeal on a district court’s jurisdiction.
Disposition
Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered a procedural order setting deadlines and requiring the parties to address the pending appeal. The court did not rule on whether the appeal actually deprived it of jurisdiction and did not resolve the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.