Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 1, 2020

Loftus v. SignPost, Inc.

Judge
John Koeltl
Docket
1:19-cv-07984
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Loftus v. SignPost, Judge Koeltl ordered briefs on how a pending Supreme Court decision might affect a requested stay.

Who this affects

The parties, William Loftus and SignPost Inc., must submit supplemental briefs by May 8, 2020.

What happened

In Loftus v. SignPost, Inc., the court asked both parties to submit supplemental briefs about a pending Supreme Court decision in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants.

The briefs must be no more than five pages and must be filed by May 8, 2020. The court specifically asked whether the case should be paused only until July 17, 2020, so the parties could consider that Supreme Court decision.

Judge John G. Koeltl did not decide the stay motion in this order; he ordered additional briefing on the issue.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Loftus v. SignPost, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-07984
Judge
John Koeltl
Date
May 1, 2020

Background

The order concerns a pending motion for a stay, meaning a request to pause the case. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the parties’ arguments about that motion.

Order

The court directed the parties to submit supplemental briefs of no more than five pages by May 8, 2020. The briefs must address how the Supreme Court’s pending decision in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, No. 19-631, 140 S. Ct. 812, could affect the motion for a stay. The court specifically asked the parties to address whether it should grant a limited stay until July 17, 2020, to allow consideration of that decision.

Disposition and Effect

The order requires additional briefing but does not state that the stay motion was granted or denied. It also does not decide the underlying legal issues in the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.