Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 18, 2022

Thorne v. Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:19-cv-10100
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Thorne v. Bob’s Discount Furniture, Judge Liman lifted the stay and set deadlines for Plaintiff to decide whether to amend after Calcano clarified standing.

Who this affects

Braulio Thorne must decide whether to amend his complaint and, if he amends, must meet the stated deadlines. Bob’s Discount Furniture, LLC may either move against an amended complaint or answer it.

What happened

In Thorne v. Bob’s Discount Furniture, LLC, the court had paused the case while the Second Circuit considered appeals involving the same issues and arguments.

The Second Circuit later ruled in Calcano v. Swarovski that conclusory statements about intending to return to stores were insufficient to establish standing, meaning a plaintiff’s legal right to bring a case. The opinion does not decide whether Thorne’s original complaint meets that standard.

Judge Lewis J. Liman lifted the stay. He ordered Plaintiff to say within 30 days whether he would amend the complaint or stand on it; any amended complaint was due within 45 days, and Bob’s Discount Furniture could respond by filing a motion or an answer.

The detailed version

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

Case
Thorne v. Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-10100
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
July 18, 2022

Background

The court had stayed this case pending a Second Circuit decision on appeals involving the same issues and arguments. On June 2, 2022, the Second Circuit issued its decision in Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd. The Second Circuit held that plaintiffs’ conclusory claims that they intended to return to defendants’ stores were insufficient to allege standing. The opinion states that the mandate in that appeal had issued.

Order

The court ordered Plaintiff to submit a letter within 30 days stating whether he intended to amend his complaint in light of the Second Circuit’s decision or would stand on his original complaint. If Plaintiff intended to amend, the court gave him 45 days after the order’s issuance to do so. If he amended, Defendant could either move against the amended complaint or answer it.

The court also ordered the Clerk of Court to lift the stay. This order set procedures and deadlines; it did not decide the merits of Plaintiff’s claims or determine whether he had standing.

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.