Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 4, 2025

Urena v. Sonder USA Inc.

Judge
Vargas
Docket
1:22-cv-07736
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Urena v. Sonder USA Inc., Judge Vargas lifted the stay, allowed supplemental letters on the pending dismissal motion, and announced a mediation referral.

Who this affects

Christian Urena, potentially members of the proposed class, and Sonder USA Inc.; the case will proceed rather than remain stayed, with supplemental submissions and mediation referral to follow.

What happened

Urena v. Sonder USA Inc. had been paused while the parties awaited a possible New York Court of Appeals decision on an issue relevant to the case. Nearly a year later, the expected appeal had not advanced, and it was unclear whether the state court would review the issue.

Judge Vargas noted that other courts had allowed similar cases to proceed and that this case, filed in 2022, had not yet had discovery. She found that continuing the stay would cause harmful delay for Christian Urena and potentially the proposed class members.

Judge Vargas lifted the stay. She allowed each side to submit a letter of up to four single-spaced pages by March 18, 2025, addressing additional authority relevant to the pending motion to dismiss, and stated that the parties would be referred to the court’s mediation program.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Urena v. Sonder USA Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07736
Judge
Vargas
Date
Mar. 4, 2025

Background

Christian Urena brought this proposed class action against Sonder USA Inc. Judge Marrero had previously stayed the case while awaiting possible review by the New York Court of Appeals of a decision in Grant v. Global Aircraft Dispatch, Inc. The issue in Grant was considered relevant to this action. At the time of the earlier stay, a request for permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals had been fully submitted to the New York Appellate Division, Second Department.

Nearly a year later, the Second Department had not ruled on that request. The court therefore found it unclear whether the New York Court of Appeals would review the issue, and stated that any such review remained far off if it occurred. Other courts in the Southern District of New York had allowed cases involving the same legal issue to proceed.

Court’s Reasoning

The court noted that this case had been filed in 2022 and that no discovery had taken place. It found that continuing the stay would create a prolonged delay that would prejudice Urena and potentially members of the proposed class. The court concluded that delaying the case for a decision that might never occur would not serve the interests of justice.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court lifted the stay. Each party was permitted to submit, by March 18, 2025, a letter no longer than four single-spaced pages containing supplemental authority relevant to the pending motion to dismiss. The court also stated that it would refer the parties to the court-annexed Mediation Program through a separate order. If the parties believed limited discovery was needed to facilitate mediation, they were directed to discuss its scope and promptly bring any disputes to the court under its civil-case rules. The Clerk of Court was directed to lift the stay. This order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the merits of the proposed class action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.