Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 22, 2023

Cawthon v. Zhousunyijie

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:22-cv-03021
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Cawthon v. Zhousunyijie: Judge Liman granted a stay while a Second Circuit appeal could affect service of process.

Who this affects

Scott Cawthon and the defendant; the case is paused, while the timeliness of service remains undecided.

What happened

In Cawthon v. Zhousunyijie, the court considered whether to pause the case while the Second Circuit reviewed a decision relevant to serving the defendant.

The court had previously denied the plaintiff’s request to serve the defendant by an alternative method. That earlier ruling relied in part on Smart Study Co. v. Acuteye-Us, and the appeal in that case was still pending.

Judge Liman granted the motion to stay the case. The court did not decide whether service would still be timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) if service did not occur during the stay, and directed the parties to request a status conference after the earlier of the appeal’s decision or five months.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cawthon v. Zhousunyijie · No. 1:22-cv-03021
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Feb. 22, 2023

Background

The court had previously denied Scott Cawthon’s motion for alternative service on the defendant. That order relied in part on the Southern District of New York’s decision in Smart Study Co. v. Acuteye-Us. An appeal from that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was pending.

Ruling

The court granted the motion to stay this case pending the Second Circuit’s decision in the Smart Study appeal. A stay pauses the case temporarily. The court reserved judgment on whether service of process would be timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) if service did not occur during the stay.

The parties were ordered to write to the court within two weeks after the Smart Study decision or within five months of February 22, 2023, whichever came first, and request that the court schedule a status conference. The Clerk of Court was directed to stay the action.

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.