Divney v. DoorDash, Inc.
- Garnett
- 1:25-cv-05708
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Divney v. DoorDash, Judge Garnett granted in part Apple Payments Services’ request to delay its response deadline while DoorDash’s possible arbitration motion is considered.
Apple Payments Services, LLC, whose deadline to respond to the complaint was postponed indefinitely; the scheduling of the other parties’ case may also depend on whether DoorDash moves to compel arbitration.
What happened
In Divney v. DoorDash, Inc. and Apple Payments Services, LLC, Apple Payments Services asked to delay its deadline to respond to the complaint. It said DoorDash might ask the court to require arbitration of claims involving an allegedly unauthorized DashPass charge, and that the arbitration issue could affect its own motion to dismiss.
The court ordered that Apple Payments Services’ response deadline be postponed indefinitely. If DoorDash asks to require arbitration, the parties will discuss the next steps at the September 4, 2025, initial conference; if DoorDash does not, the court will set a new response schedule for Apple Payments Services.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted in part Apple Payments Services’ request and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entry 18. The order did not decide whether arbitration is required or whether Apple Payments Services’ motion to dismiss should be granted.
The detailed version
- Divney v. DoorDash, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-05708
- Garnett
- Aug. 13, 2025
Background
Apple Payments Services, LLC (APS) asked the court to delay its deadline to respond to Divney’s complaint. APS said its response was due August 18, 2025, and proposed different deadlines depending on whether DoorDash, Inc. asked the court to compel arbitration—that is, to require the dispute to be decided by an arbitrator rather than in court.
APS stated that DoorDash’s consumer terms contain an arbitration agreement covering disputes related to use of DoorDash’s services. APS also stated that its Apple Pay and Wallet terms do not contain a mandatory arbitration provision. According to the request, Divney’s claims against DoorDash and APS arise from the same allegedly unauthorized $9.99 DashPass charge, which Divney alleges was processed through APS. APS argued that deciding any arbitration motion first would be more efficient because the arbitration could address issues relevant to the claims against APS.
Divney did not consent to APS’s request. DoorDash took no position. The request concerned only APS’s deadline to respond to the complaint; the court had not yet ruled on APS’s motion to dismiss or on whether DoorDash’s claims were subject to arbitration.
Ruling
Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted in part APS’s request. The court ordered that APS’s deadline to respond to the complaint be adjourned indefinitely, meaning that no new deadline was set at that time. If DoorDash moves to compel arbitration, the court will discuss the parties’ positions and the appropriate next steps at the initial pretrial conference scheduled for September 4, 2025. If DoorDash does not make that motion, the court will set a new schedule for APS to respond.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entry 18. The order did not decide the merits of Divney’s claims, the applicability of DoorDash’s arbitration agreement, or APS’s anticipated motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.