Delacruz v. WW International, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-01016
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Delacrugz v. WW International, Judge Woods automatically stayed the case after receiving a bankruptcy notice concerning WW International.
The automatic stay pauses this case, including proceedings involving Emanuel Delacrugz and WW International, Inc.; the June 5, 2025 initial pretrial conference was adjourned indefinitely.
What happened
In Emanuel Delacrugz v. WW International, Inc., the court addressed a bankruptcy-related pause in the plaintiff’s case, which was brought on behalf of himself and similarly situated people.
The court said it had received a suggestion of bankruptcy concerning WW International. Because of that, the case was automatically stayed under federal bankruptcy law, which generally pauses proceedings against a bankruptcy debtor.
Judge Gregory H. Woods adjourned the initial pretrial conference indefinitely, directed the plaintiff to submit a status letter by the earlier of an event affecting the stay or October 7, 2025, and directed the Clerk of Court to note the stay on the docket.
The detailed version
- Delacruz v. WW International, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01016
- Gregory Woods
- May 7, 2025
Background
The plaintiff, Emanuel Delacrugz, sued WW International, Inc. on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people. The opinion addresses only the effect of a bankruptcy-related filing on the case.
Court’s Action
The court stated that it had received a suggestion of bankruptcy concerning WW International. Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), the bankruptcy automatic stay generally pauses the commencement or continuation of proceedings against a debtor. The court therefore stated that this case was automatically stayed.
The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for June 5, 2025, indefinitely. It directed the plaintiff to submit a status letter by the earlier of an event that the plaintiff contends affects the automatic stay or October 7, 2025. The Clerk of Court was directed to note the stay on the docket.
Disposition
The case was automatically stayed. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.