Reveron v. Spreadshirt, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-04093
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Reveron v. Spreadshirt, Judge Tarnofsky extended the deadline for opposing Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss.
Stephanie M. Reveron and the Defendants, including Walmart-Stores and Spreadshirt, Inc.
What happened
In Reveron v. Spreadshirt, Inc., Walmart-Stores moved to dismiss Stephanie M. Reveron’s complaint, and Spreadshirt joined that motion. The order states that Reveron is representing herself.
Reveron had not filed an opposition by the original July 31, 2025 deadline. The court extended her deadline to August 19, 2025 and directed her to address why the dismissal grounds identified by Defendants and in an earlier report and recommendation did not require dismissal of her claims against all Defendants.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky ordered that, if Reveron did not respond by August 19, the motion would be treated as unopposed and fully submitted. The order did not decide whether the motion to dismiss should be granted; if Reveron filed an opposition, Defendants could reply by September 2, 2025.
The detailed version
- Reveron v. Spreadshirt, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-04093
- John Cronan
- Aug. 5, 2025
Background
On June 30, 2025, Defendant Walmart-Stores filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, along with supporting papers and a notice informing the self-represented plaintiff about the motion. Defendant Spreadshirt joined Walmart-Stores’ motion. The court had previously given Stephanie M. Reveron until July 31, 2025 to oppose the motion, but she did not file an opposition by that date.
Order
The court retroactively extended Reveron’s deadline to file an opposition until August 19, 2025. It directed her to explain why the grounds identified in the motion papers and in the court’s earlier report and recommendation did not require dismissal of her claims against all Defendants. The order also explained that the court would evaluate the legal sufficiency of the complaint even if the motion were unopposed, while applying the more flexible reading generally given to complaints filed by people without lawyers.
If Reveron did not file an opposition by August 19, 2025, the court would treat the motion as unopposed and fully submitted, with no additional briefs permitted in connection with the motion. If she opposed the motion, Defendants would have until September 2, 2025 to file reply papers. Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky did not rule on the motion to dismiss in this order and did not decide whether it should be granted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.