Rapaport v. Doe 1
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-06709
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rapaport v. Doe 1, Judge Clarke denied Rapaport’s request to stay the consolidated cases while he appealed a nonfinal dismissal order.
Gideon Rapaport, the defendants in the two consolidated actions, and the court proceedings were affected. The stay was denied, and Rapaport’s May 2, 2025 deadline to file a First Consolidated Amended Complaint remained in place.
What happened
In Rapaport v. Doe 1, Gideon Rapaport asked the court to pause two consolidated cases while he appealed an earlier order that granted and denied in part the defendants’ requests to dismiss his claims. Rapaport was representing himself.
The court ruled that the earlier order was not final because it allowed Rapaport to amend some claims, and Rapaport had not obtained permission for an immediate appeal. The court therefore found that his appeal did not prevent the district court from continuing to handle the cases.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied Rapaport’s request to stay the consolidated cases. She kept Rapaport’s deadline to file a combined amended complaint on May 2, 2025, and explained what would happen depending on whether he filed it.
The detailed version
- Rapaport v. Doe 1 · No. 1:23-cv-06709
- Clarke
- Apr. 23, 2025
Background
The opinion concerns two consolidated actions: the lead case, No. 24-CV-7439, involving antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims, and the related Doe Action, No. 23-CV-6709. On March 31, 2025, the court granted and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss in the Doe Action. The court dismissed some of Rapaport’s claims with prejudice and others without prejudice, and directed him to file a First Consolidated Amended Complaint by May 2, 2025. The complaint was to combine the claims that he was allowed to amend in the Doe Action with the claims in the lead case.
Rapaport filed a notice of appeal from the March 31 order on April 7, 2025. On April 22, 2025, he asked the court to stay, or pause, the consolidated action while the appeal proceeded.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that it retained authority over the case despite the notice of appeal. It explained that an appeal ordinarily transfers control over the appealed aspects of a case to the appeals court, but that rule does not apply when the appeal is defective. The court concluded that Rapaport’s appeal was premature because the March 31 order was not final or immediately appealable.
The court reasoned that the order allowed Rapaport to amend certain claims, and an order dismissing claims with leave to amend is not final. The fact that some claims were dismissed with prejudice did not make the order final because the order did not resolve all remaining claims. The court also noted that Rapaport had not requested certification for an immediate, nonfinal appeal and was too late to do so.
Ruling and Effect
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ordered that Rapaport’s request to stay the consolidated action pending his appeal was DENIED. His First Consolidated Amended Complaint remained due by May 2, 2025.
The court stated that if Rapaport filed the amended complaint, his appeal would become moot and the consolidated cases would continue. If he did not file it, the court stated that it would dismiss the Doe Action in its entirety and direct final judgment in the defendants’ favor. The court further stated that, in that event, Rapaport’s appeal could continue, and defendants in the lead case could renew their motions to dismiss. The Clerk was directed to terminate the stay request on the lead-case docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.