Davitashvili v. Grubhub Inc.

Background

The parties submitted a status update after the case had been stayed pending appeals concerning the defendants’ efforts to compel arbitration. The Second Circuit issued an opinion on March 13, 2025, affirming in part and reversing in part. It held that an arbitrator needed to decide whether the plaintiffs’ claims against Uber were subject to arbitration, but that Grubhub’s arbitration clause did not apply to the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims against Grubhub. The Second Circuit issued its mandate on April 4, 2025, remanding the case for this court to adjudicate the merits of the complaint concerning Grubhub and for further proceedings.

Parties’ Positions

The plaintiffs asked the court to lift the stay and permit discovery to resume. They explained that the stay had been sought because of the pending appeals and concerns about proceeding before the appeals were resolved. According to the plaintiffs, those concerns no longer applied because the appeals had concluded. They also stated that none of the named plaintiffs’ claims against Grubhub was subject to arbitration, although five named plaintiffs’ claims might be subject to arbitration with Uber. The opinion text provided does not set out the defendants’ position in detail.

Ruling

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan lifted the stay of the action pending appeal. He ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by September 30, 2025, and set December 16, 2025, as the deadline for completing fact discovery. The order also set deadlines for the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and supporting expert reports, the defendants’ opposition and expert reports, and the plaintiffs’ reply and rebuttal expert reports. The order addressed the case’s schedule and did not itself decide the merits of the antitrust claims or whether the claims against Uber are arbitrable.