Thorne v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-10402
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Thorne v. Godiva, Judge Liman lifted the stay and set deadlines for Plaintiff to amend or stand on his complaint after Calcano.
Braulio Thorne, the people he seeks to represent, and Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.; the order also directs the Clerk of Court to lift the stay.
What happened
In Thorne v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., the court had paused the case while the Second Circuit considered similar standing issues. Godiva had filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of standing, and no answer had been filed.
The Second Circuit later ruled in Calcano that conclusory statements about intending to return to a defendant’s stores were not enough to show standing. The district court therefore asked Thorne to decide whether to change his complaint in light of that ruling or continue with the original complaint.
Judge Liman lifted the stay and ordered Thorne to tell the court within 30 days whether he would amend his complaint. If he amends, he has 45 days from the order to do so; if he does not, Godiva must say whether it will renew its earlier motion to dismiss or answer the complaint.
The detailed version
- Thorne v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10402
- Lewis Liman
- July 18, 2022
Background
Braulio Thorne brought this putative class action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated persons. The court had stayed the case while the Second Circuit considered appeals involving the same issues and arguments. Before the stay, Godiva had filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of standing. The opinion states that no answer had been filed.
Effect of the Second Circuit’s Decision
On June 2, 2022, the Second Circuit issued its decision in a consolidated appeal, holding that plaintiffs’ conclusory statements that they intended to return to defendants’ stores were insufficient to allege standing. The mandate in that appeal had issued by the time of this order. The district court did not decide Thorne’s standing or the merits of Godiva’s motion in this order.
Order
The court ordered Thorne to submit a letter within 30 days stating whether he intended to amend his complaint in light of the Second Circuit’s decision or stand on the original complaint. If Thorne chose to amend, the court allowed 45 days after issuance of the order to file the amendment. Godiva could then either move against the amended complaint or answer it.
If Thorne chose not to amend, Godiva was required, within 14 days after Thorne notified the court of that decision or after his amendment period expired, to state whether it would renew the motion to dismiss that had previously been denied without prejudice at docket entry 33 or answer the complaint. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to lift the stay. The order otherwise set deadlines and next steps; it did not resolve the pending legal issues on their merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.