Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 15, 2020

Yovanny Dominguez v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc.

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:19-cv-10635
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Dominguez v. Foot Locker, Judge Carter stayed the case and deadlines pending related appeals and denied Foot Locker’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and Foot Locker Retail, Inc.; the case and all deadlines were stayed, and Foot Locker’s motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice to refiling.

What happened

Dominguez v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. involved plaintiffs suing Foot Locker Retail, Inc. on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated people. The court considered letters the parties submitted in response to an earlier order.

The court stayed the case and all deadlines while consolidated appeals in Mendez v. AnnTaylor, Inc. were pending. It also denied Foot Locker’s pending motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling after the stay ends.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered the parties to submit a joint written report about how they want to proceed within 14 days after the appeals are resolved.

The detailed version

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

Case
Yovanny Dominguez v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10635
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
July 15, 2020

Background

The plaintiffs brought this case against Foot Locker Retail, Inc. on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated people. The court received letters from the parties in response to its June 24, 2020 order.

Court’s action

The court stayed the case and “any and all deadlines” pending resolution of consolidated appeals in Mendez v. AnnTaylor, Inc., No. 19-CV-10625, 2020 WL 1974211 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2020), appeal filed, No. 20-1550.

The court denied Foot Locker’s pending motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling after the stay is lifted. The order also required the parties to submit a joint written status report stating how they wished to proceed within 14 days after the consolidated appeals were resolved.

Disposition and significance

This order paused the case and deadlines and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling. It did not decide the underlying claims or the motion to dismiss on the merits. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. entered the order on July 15, 2020.

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.