AMERIWAY CORPORATION v. MAY YAN CHEN and ABILITY CUSTOMS, INC.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-09407
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ameriway v. Chen, Judge Broderick granted defendants’ motion to stay the action pending their interlocutory appeal.
The stay pauses further proceedings for Ameriway Corporation, May Yan Chen, and Ability Customs, Inc. The parties must submit a joint status letter within seven days after the Supreme Court denies defendants’ petition for review or decides the interlocutory appeal.
What happened
Ameriway Corporation sued May Yan Chen and Ability Customs, Inc. Defendants asked the court to pause the case while their appeal before final judgment was resolved. Plaintiff opposed the request in a joint letter, arguing that a Supreme Court request for review was unlikely to succeed and that a longer pause served no valid purpose.
The court said it had broad discretion to pause a case and considered the likely harm to the parties, the effect on the public, and the appeal. It did not decide whether defendants were likely to win the appeal. The court found that plaintiff’s position suggested a stay would not substantially harm it, while defendants said continuing the case could prejudice them during the appeal.
Judge Broderick granted defendants’ motion to stay the action. Within seven days after the Supreme Court denies defendants’ request for review or decides the appeal, the parties must file a joint status letter about proposed next steps.
The detailed version
- AMERIWAY CORPORATION v. MAY YAN CHEN and ABILITY CUSTOMS, INC. · No. 1:19-cv-09407
- Vernon Broderick
- Oct. 27, 2025
Background
The defendants moved to stay, or pause, the action while their interlocutory appeal was pending. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal taken before the district court case has fully ended. The opinion also refers to defendants’ petition to the Supreme Court for review. Plaintiff did not file a separate opposition to the motion, but stated in a joint status letter that it opposed the stay because the request for Supreme Court review had virtually no chance of success and a longer stay served no valid purpose.
Legal standard
The court explained that district courts have broad discretion to control the timing and management of cases. It identified four factors relevant to a stay: whether the applicant has made a strong showing of likely success on the appeal, whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether the stay would substantially harm other parties, and where the public interest lies. The court also noted that the strength required for one factor can vary depending on the strength of the other factors.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that it did not need to address the merits of defendants’ appeal to decide that a stay was warranted. It found that plaintiff’s position in the joint status letter suggested plaintiff would not be substantially harmed by a stay. Defendants represented that they would be prejudiced by further proceedings while the appeal was pending. The court observed that public-interest considerations supported both promptly resolving plaintiff’s claims and resolving defendants’ concerns about subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s authority to hear the case. On balance, the court concluded that a stay was warranted.
Disposition
The court ordered that defendants’ motion to stay the action is GRANTED. It further ordered the parties to submit, within seven days after the Supreme Court either denies defendants’ petition for review or issues a decision in the interlocutory appeal, a joint status letter of no more than three single-spaced pages addressing proposed next steps. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at Doc. 208. The opinion does not decide the merits of the underlying action or the interlocutory appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.