Doe v. Fashion Institute of Technology
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-00950
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Doe v. Fashion Institute of Technology, Judge Cronan granted permission to file an anticipated stay motion and adjourned the amended-complaint deadline.
Plaintiff Jane Doe and the defendant, Fashion Institute of Technology, are affected by the filing schedule and the adjournment of the amended-complaint deadline.
What happened
In Doe v. Fashion Institute of Technology, Plaintiff Jane Doe asked to file a motion seeking to pause case deadlines while her appeal of the court’s decision about using a pseudonym is pending. The request was made before the anticipated motion was filed.
The letter said the court had previously allowed Doe to proceed anonymously, later denied a renewed request, and denied reconsideration. Doe then filed a notice of an interlocutory appeal. She proposed deadlines of August 19, September 2, and September 9, 2025, for the motion, opposition, and reply.
Judge John P. Cronan granted the request to file the anticipated motion by August 19, 2025. The defendant’s opposition is due September 15, and Doe’s reply is due September 22. The deadline for Doe to file an amended complaint was adjourned until seven days after the court resolves the anticipated stay motion. The order did not itself grant or deny the stay.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Fashion Institute of Technology · No. 1:25-cv-00950
- John Cronan
- July 29, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Jane Doe, through an attorney with National Jewish Advocacy Center, Inc., submitted a letter requesting permission to file an anticipated motion to stay the case. A stay would pause specified case deadlines. The proposed motion would seek a stay while Doe’s interlocutory appeal—an appeal before the case is finished—of the court’s denial of her motion for reconsideration is pending.
The letter stated that the court had allowed Doe to proceed under a pseudonym on February 3, 2025. The court later denied her renewed unopposed motion to proceed under a pseudonym on April 3, 2025, and denied her motion for reconsideration on July 11, 2025. Doe filed a notice of interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 18, 2025.
Requested schedule
Doe proposed filing the motion for a stay by August 19, 2025. Under her proposed schedule, the defendant’s opposition would be due September 2, 2025, and her reply would be due September 9, 2025.
Ruling
Judge John P. Cronan granted the request to file the anticipated motion by August 19, 2025. The defendant’s opposition is due September 15, 2025, and Doe’s reply is due September 22, 2025. The deadline for Doe to file an amended complaint is adjourned to seven days after the court resolves the anticipated motion for a stay.
The order grants permission to file the anticipated motion and changes the briefing schedule. It does not state that the court granted or denied the requested stay itself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.