Reveron v. Spreadshirt, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-04093
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Reveron v. Spreadshirt, Judge Tarnofsky set briefing deadlines on motions to dismiss without deciding them.
Stephanie M. Reveron, Walmart-Stores, Spreadshirt, Inc., and the other defendants in the case are affected by the briefing schedule and the court’s notice that dismissal grounds may apply to all defendants.
What happened
In Reveron v. Spreadshirt, Inc., Walmart-Stores moved to dismiss the complaint, and Spreadshirt joined that motion. The court gave Stephanie M. Reveron until July 31, 2025, to respond.
The court required Reveron to explain why the dismissal arguments and the court’s earlier analysis did not require dismissal of her claims against all defendants. The order did not decide the motions or dismiss any claims.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky also gave the defendants until August 15, 2025, to file reply papers if Reveron opposed the motions.
The detailed version
- Reveron v. Spreadshirt, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-04093
- John Cronan
- July 18, 2025
Background
Defendant Walmart-Stores filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 30, 2025. Defendant Spreadshirt, Inc. joined Walmart-Stores’ motion. The order also referred to the court’s futility analysis in an earlier report and recommendation, and to the possibility that the same dismissal grounds could apply to claims against defendants who did not move for dismissal.
What the Court Ordered
The court set a briefing schedule rather than ruling on the motions. Stephanie M. Reveron may oppose the motions by July 31, 2025. Her opposition must address why the grounds identified in the motion papers and in the earlier futility analysis do not require dismissal of her claims against all defendants. If she opposes the motions, the defendants may file reply papers by August 15, 2025.
Disposition and Effect
The order did not grant or deny the motions to dismiss and did not dismiss any claims. It required further briefing and put Reveron on notice that the court may consider dismissing claims against non-moving defendants if the grounds for dismissal apply equally to them. The supplied case information identifies John Cronan as the judge, but the opinion is signed by Robyn F. Tarnofsky, United States Magistrate Judge; this summary uses the judge named in the opinion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.