Lopez v. VF Outdoor, LLC
- Laura Swain
- 1:19-cv-11768
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lopez v. VF Outdoor, Judge Swain granted the parties’ request to extend the stay for 90 days while related appeals proceeded.
The stay affects Victor Lopez and VF Outdoor, LLC by pausing further proceedings in the case while the related appeals proceed.
What happened
In Lopez v. VF Outdoor, LLC, the parties asked the court to continue pausing the case because similar Americans with Disabilities Act issues were pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The case had already been paused until August 4, 2020. The parties jointly requested another 90-day pause to conserve resources and allow the court to consider the appellate rulings.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted the request to extend the stay. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. VF Outdoor, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-11768
- Laura Swain
- July 30, 2020
Background
VF Outdoor, LLC asked the court to extend an existing stay—a pause in the case. The request was made with the consent of counsel for Victor Lopez. The case concerns allegations involving gift cards associated with The North Face brand under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The court had previously stayed the case until August 4, 2020. VF Outdoor said that similar legal issues were pending in appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, including an appeal involving six related Americans with Disabilities Act cases. The parties said extending the stay would promote efficiency and avoid potentially unnecessary briefing while the appeals proceeded.
Ruling
The court granted the request to extend the stay. The parties had requested an additional 90 days and stated that, if the Second Circuit had not ruled by November 4, 2020, they would reassess whether the stay should continue and submit a status report. The order granted the extension but did not decide the underlying claims or state a separate merits ruling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.