Bates v. Dev A Concepts, LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-09056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bates v. Deva Concepts, Judge Woods denied reconsideration of permission for plaintiffs to file an additional response addressing a new arbitration argument.
The plaintiffs, Alexa Bates et al., were allowed to file a sur-reply, while Deva Concepts LLC’s motion to reconsider that permission was denied.
What happened
In Bates v. Deva Concepts LLC, the defendant asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision allowing the plaintiffs to file an additional response to a reply brief.
The defendant had raised arbitration for the first time in its reply, arguing that the plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate by accepting the website’s terms. The plaintiffs said those terms concerned only which law applied, not arbitration, and the defendant had previously told the court it no longer planned to seek arbitration.
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied the motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to terminate it. The court did not decide whether the claims must be arbitrated.
The detailed version
- Bates v. Dev A Concepts, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-09056
- Gregory Woods
- June 10, 2022
Background
The court had previously allowed the plaintiffs to file a sur-reply, meaning an additional filing responding to arguments made in a reply brief. Deva Concepts LLC asked the court to reconsider that decision.
Arguments
The defendant had argued for the first time in its reply that the plaintiffs’ claims were subject to arbitration because they had agreed to the terms and conditions on the defendant’s website. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs had opened the door to that argument by discussing the website’s terms in their opposition brief.
The plaintiffs’ discussion of the terms, however, concerned choice of law rather than arbitration. The court also noted that the defendant had previously stated in a letter that it no longer planned to seek an order requiring arbitration.
Ruling
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy used sparingly and that decisions allowing sur-replies are within the court’s discretion. It declined to change its earlier decision allowing the plaintiffs to file a sur-reply. The court therefore denied the defendant’s motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Dkt. No. 65. The order did not decide whether arbitration was required or resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.