Golden v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-09858
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Golden v. NBCUniversal Media, Judge Engelmayer directed counsel to discuss expedited remand after an appellate decision called the dismissal into question.
Sherhonda Golden and NBCUniversal Media, LLC; their counsel were directed to confer about a possible expedited remand and reconsideration.
What happened
In Golden v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, the court had dismissed Sherhonda Golden’s complaint after following a decision in a related case. That dismissal was being appealed.
The Second Circuit later vacated the related decision. The district court said that ruling called Golden’s dismissal into question and could make a later remand likely.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer directed Golden’s and NBCUniversal’s lawyers to confer promptly about agreeing on a stipulation or another way to return the case quickly to the district court for reconsideration. The order did not itself vacate the dismissal or order a remand.
The detailed version
- Golden v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09858
- Paul Engelmayer
- Oct. 18, 2024
Background
On September 11, 2024, the court granted NBCUniversal Media, LLC’s motion to dismiss Sherhonda Golden’s complaint. In doing so, the court had followed a decision in a related case involving the same legal issue. The court noted that an appeal from that related decision was pending and stated that Golden could seek relief from the judgment if the appellate decision changed the legal basis for the dismissal.
The Second Circuit issued its decision vacating the related decision on October 15, 2024. The district court stated that the appellate ruling clearly called its dismissal of Golden’s case into question. The dismissal itself was then pending on appeal in the Second Circuit.
Order
To expedite the litigation and avoid the cost and time of an appeal likely to result in a remand, the court directed counsel for Golden and NBCUniversal to confer promptly. The court asked them to consider agreeing to a stipulation or another mechanism for an expedited remand to the district court so it could reconsider the case in light of the Second Circuit’s decision.
The order did not itself vacate the earlier dismissal, grant reconsideration, or order the case remanded. It directed the parties’ counsel to discuss a mechanism for seeking that result.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.