Doe 1 v. Alexander
- Jesse Furman
- 2:25-cv-02113
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Doe 1 v. Alexander, Judge Furman stayed the case pending appeals, denied a criminal-case stay without prejudice, and deferred pseudonymity.
Jane Doe I, Tal Alexander, and Alon Alexander. The case is stayed pending the specified appeals; the pseudonymity issue remains undecided, and the defendants may renew their request for a criminal-case stay if or when the appeals-related stay is lifted.
What happened
In Doe 1 v. Alexander, the court considered requests concerning a stay of the case, a stay of discovery, and Jane Doe I’s request to proceed without publicly revealing her name. The case involves claims under New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law, and defendants Tal Alexander and Alon Alexander also faced separate criminal proceedings.
The court agreed to stay the case while two identified appeals are pending. It did not decide whether the case should also be stayed because of the criminal proceedings, and it left the pseudonymity issue unresolved until the stay is lifted.
Judge Furman denied the defendants’ request for a stay based on their criminal cases without prejudice to renewing it later. The court directed the parties to report on next steps after either appeal is decided and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motions while the stay remains in place.
The detailed version
- Doe 1 v. Alexander · No. 2:25-cv-02113
- Jesse Furman
- June 2, 2025
Background
Jane Doe I brought this action under New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law. Defendant Tal Alexander removed the case to federal court, and an amended notice of removal was later filed. Jane Doe I moved to proceed under a pseudonym, meaning without publicly disclosing her name; that motion remained pending.
Defendants moved to dismiss and to strike certain allegations. They also sought a stay of the case and discovery based in part on two pending Second Circuit appeals and in part on separate criminal proceedings against Tal Alexander and Alon Alexander. The criminal case involved different alleged victims, conduct, and time periods from the civil case. Jane Doe I did not oppose a stay tied to the appeals, but opposed a broader stay based on the criminal proceedings and opposed being required to reveal her identity while the case was stayed.
Court’s Rulings
The court agreed that the case should be stayed pending the appeals in Parker v. Tal Alexander et al., No. 25-487, and Doe v. Black, No. 25-564. The court also agreed that resolving the pending pseudonymity motion during the stay would be unfair and inappropriate. It therefore did not decide the pseudonymity issue at this time.
The court did not decide whether the case should separately be stayed pending the outcome of the defendants’ criminal cases, because the timing or outcome of the appeals might make that issue unnecessary. The court denied the defendants’ request for a stay pending their criminal cases without prejudice to renewal if or when the stay pending the appeals is lifted.
Next Steps and Effect
The parties must confer and file a joint letter addressing next steps within one week after either relevant appeal is decided. The Clerk of Court was directed to place the case on the suspense docket. The court reserved judgment on the pending motions, including the pseudonymity, dismissal, and other identified motions, but directed the Clerk to terminate them while the stay is in effect. The parties may request that the motions be reinstated when the stay is lifted, if appropriate.
The order addressed case management only. It did not decide the merits of Jane Doe I’s claims, the defendants’ motions to dismiss, or whether Jane Doe I may proceed under a pseudonym.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.