Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 7, 2024

Shaw v. American Textile Company, Inc.

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:23-cv-10193
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

Judge Woods granted Shaw v. American Textile’s joint request to stay the case pending Lancaster v. American Textile.

Who this affects

The case brought by Kevin Shaw against American Textile Company, Inc. is paused pending the resolution of Lancaster. The defendant’s motion to dismiss is treated as withdrawn but may be renewed later.

What happened

In Shaw v. American Textile Company, Inc., the parties jointly asked the court to pause the case while Lancaster v. American Textile Company, Inc. is resolved. They said the two cases substantially overlap.

The court granted the request and stayed this case. It directed the parties to submit a joint status letter by September 7, 2024, or within 10 days after Lancaster is resolved, whichever comes first.

Judge Gregory H. Woods also treated the defendant’s motion to dismiss as withdrawn because of the stay. The defendant may renew that motion later, and the clerk was directed to terminate the motions listed at Docket Numbers 23 and 26.

The detailed version

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

Case
Shaw v. American Textile Company, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-10193
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Mar. 7, 2024

Background

The parties jointly asked the court to stay, or pause, this case while Lancaster v. American Textile Company, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-1280 (N.D.N.Y.), is resolved. They stated that the two cases substantially overlap and proposed giving the court an update after the Lancaster matter is resolved.

Rulings

The court granted the parties’ request to stay this matter pending the resolution of Lancaster. The parties must submit a joint status letter by September 7, 2024, or within 10 days after Lancaster is resolved, whichever is earlier.

The court treated the defendant’s motion to dismiss as withdrawn because of the stay. The defendant may renew the motion to dismiss at a later time. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at Docket Numbers 23 and 26 and note the stay on the docket.

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.