Gabriel Bros, Inc. v. Effy Jewelers Corp.
- James Oetken
- 1:18-cv-07289
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Gabriel Bros. v. Effy Jewelers, Judge Oetken granted the joint motion and stayed the action until March 15, 2020.
Gabriel Bros., Inc., Effy Jewelers Corp., Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., and Belk, Inc.; the action was paused until March 15, 2020.
What happened
Gabriel Bros., Inc. v. Effy Jewelers Corp. involved a joint request by Gabriel Bros., Inc., Effy Jewelers Corp., Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., and Belk, Inc. to pause the case while they pursued settlement.
The parties told the court that document discovery was complete but some depositions remained, and that they were exchanging financial and copyright-assignment evidence. They also said that, if settlement failed, they had agreed to dismiss the case and proceed with binding arbitration.
Judge J. Paul Oetken granted the request and ordered that the action be stayed until March 15, 2020.
The detailed version
- Gabriel Bros, Inc. v. Effy Jewelers Corp. · No. 1:18-cv-07289
- James Oetken
- Feb. 12, 2020
Background
Gabriel Bros., Inc. and Defendants Effy Jewelers Corp., Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., and Belk, Inc. jointly asked the court to stay, or pause, the action while they engaged in settlement discussions. Fact discovery was scheduled to close on February 28, 2020. The parties stated that document discovery had been completed, but depositions involving travel by the parties’ counsel remained pending.
The parties also stated that Gabriel was reviewing financial evidence provided by the defendants and that the defendants were awaiting corroborating evidence from China concerning whether the copyright had been assigned to Gabriel when the original author created the work. They said that, if settlement negotiations failed, they had agreed to dismiss the action and proceed with binding arbitration, with the arbitration terms still under discussion.
Ruling
The court granted the joint motion. Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered: “This action is stayed until March 15, 2020.” The order did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.