Federal Trade Commission v. Voyager Digital, LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-08960
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Federal Trade Commission v. Voyager Digital, Judge Woods granted a 45-day stay so the parties could finalize a proposed settlement order.
The stay affects the Federal Trade Commission, Stephen Ehrlich, and Francine Ehrlich by pausing the case until June 27, 2025, and may delay the litigation-related relief sought for consumers.
What happened
In Federal Trade Commission v. Voyager Digital, LLC, the Federal Trade Commission and defendants Stephen Ehrlich and Francine Ehrlich jointly asked the court to pause the case while they sought approval of a proposed settlement order. The proposed order would resolve the remaining issues.
The parties said the stay would allow the Commission to obtain approval from its commissioners before signing the proposed order. They also said it would conserve resources, avoid unnecessary litigation activity, and speed possible relief for consumers.
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the request. The case is stayed until June 27, 2025; the May 30 conference was adjourned without a new date, and the parties must provide a status update by June 27 if they have not submitted the proposed order.
The detailed version
- Federal Trade Commission v. Voyager Digital, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-08960
- Gregory Woods
- May 13, 2025
Background
The Federal Trade Commission, together with defendant Stephen Ehrlich and relief defendant Francine Ehrlich, jointly requested a 45-day stay of the case. A relief defendant is a person or entity alleged to have received funds or other benefits connected to the claims, although the order does not explain the specific allegations against Francine Ehrlich.
The parties reported that they had negotiated a proposed Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Judgment, and Other Relief that would resolve all remaining issues. The Ehrlich Defendants and their lawyers had signed the proposed order, but the Commission said its commissioners had to approve the settlement before the Commission’s lawyers could countersign it and submit a joint motion asking the court to enter it. The Commission estimated that approval could take up to 45 days.
Reasons for the requested stay
The parties argued that pausing the case would conserve the Commission’s and defendants’ resources and allow the matter to be resolved more quickly than continued litigation. They stated that discovery was complete, that no summary-judgment briefing or trial schedule had been set, and that the requested stay would eliminate the need for a May 30 conference concerning requests to brief summary judgment. They also stated that no witnesses or other nonparties had been scheduled to appear at hearings and that a settlement could avoid future inconvenience to witnesses.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the parties’ request for a stay of proceedings. The case is stayed until June 27, 2025, so the parties can submit a joint motion seeking entry of the proposed stipulated order. The May 30, 2025 conference was adjourned without a new date. If no proposed stipulated order had been submitted by June 27, the parties were directed to submit a joint status letter by that date. The clerk was directed to record the stay and terminate the pending motion at Docket Number 117.
This order addresses the timing and management of the case; it does not decide the underlying claims or enter the proposed settlement order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.