Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 2, 2025

Owens v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:24-cv-05517
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureArbitration
In one sentence

In Owens v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Judge Woods granted PwC’s request to adjourn the initial pretrial conference indefinitely while it anticipated an appeal.

Who this affects

Nina Owens and the defendant PwC entities in this case; the order postponed the case’s initial pretrial conference and related case-management deadline.

What happened

In Nina Owens v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC, the defendants asked the court to postpone the initial pretrial conference because they expected to appeal an earlier order denying their request to compel arbitration.

The conference had been scheduled for July 16, 2025. The defendants also asked to postpone indefinitely the deadline for submitting a joint letter and proposed case-management plan. Owens’s counsel did not oppose the request.

Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the application. He adjourned the conference and extended the submission deadline indefinitely, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Owens v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC · No. 1:24-cv-05517
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
July 2, 2025

Background

The defendants—PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services LLC, PwC US Consulting LLP, PwC USA LLP, and PwC US Group LLP, collectively referred to as “PwC”—asked the court to continue indefinitely the initial pretrial conference scheduled for July 16, 2025. The conference had previously been scheduled for July 1 and had been adjourned once because of a scheduling conflict involving Nina Owens’s counsel.

Request

PwC stated that it planned to file a notice of appeal by July 11, 2025, from the court’s June 12, 2025 order denying PwC’s motion to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 16. PwC argued that the court was required to stay its proceedings while that interlocutory appeal concerning arbitrability was pending. The parties conferred, and Owens’s counsel did not oppose the request.

Ruling

Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the application. The court adjourned the July 16 initial pretrial conference indefinitely in anticipation of the defendants’ filing a notice of appeal. It also extended indefinitely the deadline for submitting the joint letter and proposed case-management plan described in the court’s June 13, 2025 order. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket No. 90.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.