Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 17, 2025

Golden v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:22-cv-09858
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

Golden v. NBCUniversal Media: Judge Engelmayer withdrew NBCUniversal’s dismissal, adjourned the conference, and set an amended-pleading schedule.

Who this affects

Sherhonda Golden and NBCUniversal Media, LLC; the case will proceed under the new pleading and briefing schedule.

What happened

Sherhonda Golden and NBCUniversal Media jointly asked the court to reopen the case after an appellate decision involving the Video Privacy Protection Act, a federal privacy law. They asked to withdraw the earlier order dismissing Golden’s claim, postpone the initial pretrial conference, and set deadlines for an amended complaint and renewed dismissal briefing.

The court granted the joint request. It adopted the proposed briefing schedule, required any amended complaint by May 9, 2025, and said further opportunities to amend ordinarily would not be granted. The court also adjourned the initial pretrial conference indefinitely.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer withdrew the court’s grant of NBCUniversal’s motion to dismiss, relying on the court’s earlier indicative ruling and the Second Circuit’s decision in Salazar v. National Basketball Association. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of Golden’s claim.

The detailed version

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

Case
Golden v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09858
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Apr. 17, 2025

Background

Sherhonda Golden sued NBCUniversal Media, LLC, asserting a claim under the Video Privacy Protection Act. The opinion text states that the court had previously granted NBCUniversal’s motion to dismiss Golden’s Third Amended Complaint in an order dated September 11, 2024. Golden’s appeal was pending when the Second Circuit decided Salazar v. National Basketball Association, 118 F.4th 533 (2d Cir. 2024).

The district court then issued an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1. That ruling stated that, if the case returned from the appeal, the court would withdraw its grant of NBCUniversal’s dismissal motion based on Salazar and would ask the parties about the next steps. The Second Circuit later issued its mandate on January 3, 2025, dismissing Golden’s appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1 and returning the case to the district court.

The Joint Request

Golden and NBCUniversal jointly asked the court to adjourn the initial pretrial conference scheduled for April 22, 2025; withdraw the earlier order granting NBCUniversal’s motion to dismiss; and set deadlines for an amended complaint and NBCUniversal’s answer or renewed motion to dismiss. The parties said that new briefing would address Salazar, developments in Video Privacy Protection Act case law, other case issues, scheduling, and possible settlement.

The proposed schedule required Golden’s amended complaint 21 days after the court’s order, NBCUniversal’s answer or motion to dismiss 49 days after the order, Golden’s opposition 77 days after the order, and NBCUniversal’s reply 91 days after the order. The parties also proposed an initial pretrial conference at least three weeks after NBCUniversal’s response deadline.

Ruling

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the joint request. The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference indefinitely and adopted the parties’ proposed briefing schedule. It required Golden to file any amended complaint by May 9, 2025, and stated that further opportunities to amend ordinarily would not be granted.

The court withdrew its grant of NBCUniversal’s motion to dismiss, citing its indicative ruling and the Second Circuit’s Salazar decision. The order did not rule on whether Golden ultimately would prevail on the Video Privacy Protection Act claim; it set the case up for further pleading and motion practice.

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.