The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-01608
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America, Judge Furman requested proposals on lifting the stay and scheduling the case’s next steps.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, including the City of Philadelphia and Bank of America Corporation, were required to address the possible lifting of the stay and propose a case schedule.
What happened
In City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation, the court said it was considering lifting a stay because the Second Circuit had affirmed the court’s earlier order allowing the plaintiffs to proceed as a class.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by August 21, 2025, addressing whether the stay should be lifted and proposing a comprehensive schedule for the case if it is lifted.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also scheduled a telephone conference for August 28, 2025, unless the court later ordered otherwise. The order did not itself lift the stay.
The detailed version
- The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-01608
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 4, 2025
Background
The court stated that the Second Circuit had recently affirmed, in a summary order, this court’s earlier order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The court had previously imposed a stay in the case.
Order
The court said it was inclined to lift the stay but did not do so in this order. Instead, it directed the parties to file a joint letter by August 21, 2025, addressing whether the stay should be lifted and proposing next steps, including a comprehensive schedule for the case, for the court to consider if it lifted the stay.
Conference and disposition
Unless the court ordered otherwise, the parties were directed to appear for a remote telephone conference on August 28, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. The order also instructed counsel to follow the court’s teleconference procedures. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered this case-management order; it did not decide the underlying claims or lift the stay.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.