Calcano v. Nordstrom, Inc.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:19-cv-09817
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Calcano v. Nordstrom, Judge Gardephe stayed the case pending appeals and denied Nordstrom’s dismissal motion without prejudice to renewal.
The action brought by Marcos Calcano against Nordstrom, Inc. was paused. Nordstrom’s motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice to renewal after the related appeals are resolved, and both parties were directed to file a joint status letter on the stated schedule.
What happened
In Calcano v. Nordstrom, Inc., the court noted that another judge had dismissed a case involving substantially the same legal issues. The plaintiff in that related case had appealed, and the appeals were consolidated with similar appeals in the Second Circuit.
The court stayed this action while those appeals are resolved. It also denied Nordstrom’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal after the appeals are decided.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe directed the parties to file a joint status letter by September 1, 2020, or within seven days after a Second Circuit opinion, whichever came first, and directed the Clerk to terminate the listed motions.
The detailed version
- Calcano v. Nordstrom, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09817
- Paul Gardephe
- June 24, 2020
Background
Marcos Calcano brought this action against Nordstrom, Inc. The court explained that the case presented substantially the same legal issues as a related case in which Judge Woods had granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss on April 23, 2020. The plaintiff in that related case appealed, and the Second Circuit consolidated that appeal with several similar appeals and set an expedited briefing schedule.
Court’s Action
The court stayed this action pending resolution of the appeals in the related cases. A stay pauses the case while the specified proceedings are pending. The court denied Nordstrom’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal once the appeals are resolved.
Further Directions and Classification
The parties were directed to file a joint status letter by September 1, 2020, or within seven days after a Second Circuit opinion, whichever occurred first. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions listed as Docket Nos. 22 and 28. The order did not decide the underlying legal issues in this case, so it is a procedural order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.