Doe v. Alexander
- Ho
- 1:25-cv-02106
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Doe v. Alexander, Judge Ho ordered the parties to address whether the case should be paused while related appeals are pending.
Jane Doe, the defendants, and the pending federal case are affected by the order requiring the parties to address whether the case should be stayed while related appeals are pending.
What happened
In Jane Doe v. Alexander et al., the defendants removed the case from New York state court to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The defendants later filed a motion to dismiss.
The court noted that two pending Second Circuit appeals involved substantially similar legal issues. The court did not decide the motion to dismiss or enter a stay.
Judge Dale E. Ho ordered the parties to file a joint letter by April 14, 2025, either asking to pause the case until the appeals are resolved or explaining why the court should not pause it.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Alexander · No. 1:25-cv-02106
- Ho
- Apr. 7, 2025
Background
The defendants removed the action from the Supreme Court of the State of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The parties then filed motions, including the defendants’ March 21, 2025 motion to dismiss.
Court’s action
The court identified two pending appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit involving legal issues it described as substantially similar to those raised by the defendants: Parker v. Alexander, No. 24 Civ. 4813, and Doe v. Black, No. 23 Civ. 6418. The court stated that the Second Circuit’s decisions on those issues would bind this court.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by April 14, 2025. The letter must either request that the case be stayed, meaning temporarily paused, while the Second Circuit resolves the appeals or explain why the court should not stay the case. This order did not decide the motion to dismiss and did not itself state that the case was stayed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.