Davitashvili v. Grubhub Inc.
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:20-cv-03000
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 30
Davitashvili v. Grubhub Inc.: Judge Kaplan granted the parties’ joint request to stay all proceedings while defendants’ arbitration appeals remain pending.
The stay affects all proceedings in the case, including the plaintiffs, defendants, and the proposed classes, until the defendants’ Second Circuit interlocutory appeals are resolved and mandates issue.
What happened
In Davitashvili v. Grubhub Inc., the parties jointly asked the Southern District of New York to pause the entire case. Defendants had appealed orders under the Federal Arbitration Act, and the appeals were pending in the Second Circuit.
The parties relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Coinbase v. Bielski, which held that a district court must pause its proceedings while an appeal about whether a case belongs in arbitration is pending. They also said that continuing with only some plaintiffs could cause duplicated discovery and multiple class-certification proceedings because all plaintiffs asserted the same allegations and claims.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted the request and stayed all proceedings until the defendants’ appeals were resolved and the Second Circuit issued its mandates. The parties said they would provide a proposed scheduling order within 21 days after the mandates were issued.
The detailed version
- Davitashvili v. Grubhub Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03000
- Lewis Kaplan
- June 30, 2023
Background
The parties jointly submitted a letter motion asking the court to stay, or pause, all proceedings in this putative class action. The request followed the Supreme Court’s June 23, 2023 decision in Coinbase v. Bielski. Defendants had pending interlocutory appeals under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a) in the Second Circuit. That statute permits an immediate appeal from certain orders denying a request to compel arbitration.
The parties explained that Coinbase requires a district court to stay its pretrial and trial proceedings while such an appeal is pending. They also argued that a complete stay was appropriate because the five named plaintiffs were subject to the appeals, all plaintiffs asserted the same allegations and claims, and no plaintiff outside the appeals could seek to represent one of the three proposed classes. Proceeding without all plaintiffs, they said, could lead to duplicated party, third-party, and expert discovery and multiple class-certification proceedings.
Ruling
The court endorsed the joint request with the word “Granted” and ordered the stay. The order stays all proceedings in the case until the defendants’ pending interlocutory appeals are resolved and the Second Circuit issues its mandates to the district court. The parties stated that, if the motion were granted, they would provide a proposed scheduling order within 21 days after the mandates issue.
Why this matters
The order pauses the district-court litigation while the Second Circuit considers the arbitration appeals. It does not decide whether the claims must ultimately be arbitrated or resolve the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Read the full 30-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.