Espinal v. Sephora USA, Inc.

Background

Rosalba Espinal and Juan Rivera sued Sephora USA, Inc., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The court had previously issued a report and recommendation concerning Sephora’s motion to dismiss, and an opinion and order had adopted that recommendation.

Reason for Reconsideration

The court stated that a recent New York appellate decision, Grant v. Glob. Aircraft Dispatch, Inc., called the earlier result into question. The court therefore decided to reconsider the report and recommendation in light of that decision. The opinion does not identify the specific legal issue affected by Grant.

Order

The court directed the parties to re-brief the motion to dismiss, except for the issues of subject-matter jurisdiction and standing. Sephora’s brief was due February 15, 2024; the plaintiffs’ opposition was due February 29, 2024; and any reply was due March 7, 2024. The parties could change those dates by agreement if they disclosed the revised schedule in a letter filed with the court.

The court also directed the parties to discuss whether discovery should be paused while the court reconsidered the dismissal motion. Any contested request to pause discovery had to comply with the court’s individual practices.

Because a new decision on the dismissal motion might make the pending summary-judgment motion unnecessary, the court deemed Sephora’s motion for summary judgment withdrawn. The court made no definitive ruling on the plaintiffs’ argument that a successful dismissal motion should not result in an order of dismissal. It stated that the plaintiffs could raise that issue in their opposition brief.

Effect of the Order

This order reopened briefing on the motion to dismiss and withdrew Sephora’s summary-judgment motion; it did not decide the ultimate merits of the parties’ claims or issue a new ruling on dismissal.