Perkins v. The New York Times Company
- P. Castel
- 1:22-cv-05202
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Perkins v. The New York Times Company, Judge Castel received a request—not a ruling—to allow a standing motion and pause deadlines.
Megan Perkins and The New York Times Company; the requested stay would affect discovery and deadlines for the case.
What happened
Perkins v. The New York Times Company concerns Megan Perkins’s claims under a North Carolina automatic-renewal law. The New York Times says Perkins subscribed to and later cancelled a digital subscription without difficulty, and that other claims had already been dismissed.
The New York Times asked for permission to seek judgment on the pleadings based on Perkins’s alleged lack of constitutional standing. It also asked the court to pause discovery and extend case deadlines while that proposed motion was decided. The letter states that Perkins consented to the requested pause.
This document is the company’s pre-motion letter, not a court ruling. Judge Castel’s decision on these requests is not included in the provided text.
The detailed version
- Perkins v. The New York Times Company · No. 1:22-cv-05202
- P. Castel
- Mar. 26, 2024
Nature of the Document
The provided document is The New York Times Company’s pre-motion letter, dated March 15, 2024, seeking permission to file a motion. It does not contain a ruling by the court.
Background
Megan Perkins enrolled in a digital subscription to The New York Times’s News product in February 2020. The subscription automatically renewed every four weeks. The letter states that Perkins paid $4 per billing period during the first year and $8 afterward through PayPal, received payment notices, accessed the digital content nearly 100 times, and cancelled on December 6, 2021. It states that she had no difficulty cancelling, retained access through December 31, 2021, and was not charged again.
Perkins’s remaining claims allege violations of a North Carolina statute governing automatically renewing contracts. She alleges that The New York Times did not clearly and conspicuously explain how to cancel the subscription and did not use 12-point bold type to disclose the price increase. The letter states that the court dismissed her other claims in a May 2023 order granting in part The New York Times’s motion to dismiss. It also states that the statute’s express remedy is to make the automatic-renewal clause void and unenforceable, rather than provide monetary relief.
The Requested Motion
The New York Times asks for permission to move under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c) and 12(h)(3) for judgment on the pleadings and dismissal based on lack of Article III standing. Standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a court ruling would remedy the injury.
The company argues that Perkins suffered no concrete injury from the alleged disclosure and formatting violations because she received and used the services, received notice of her payments, and cancelled without difficulty. It also argues that any claimed injury was not caused by the alleged violations and could not be remedied because Perkins cancelled before filing suit. The company further argues that the North Carolina statute does not authorize the monetary relief Perkins seeks.
Requested Stay and Status
The New York Times separately asks under Rule 26(c) to stay, or pause, discovery and adjourn other case deadlines until its proposed jurisdictional motion is resolved. The letter states that Perkins consents to the stay. It also requests permission to file the motion seven days after permission is granted, with Perkins’s response due 14 days after filing and the company’s reply due seven days after the response.
No disposition of either request appears in the provided document. Judge Castel therefore did not grant, deny, or otherwise resolve the requests in the text supplied.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.