Thorne v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 19-CV-10072 (JMF). (2020)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20200310e90
Visitors: 18
Filed: Mar. 09, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2020
Summary: ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN , District Judge . In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant does not sell gift cards that contain writing in Braille and that its failure to do so violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and analogous state and city laws. Similar claims are asserted — by other plaintiffs, against other defendants — in hundreds of cases in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, including at least eight cases assigned to the undersigned. The defendants in many of tho
Summary: ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN , District Judge . In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant does not sell gift cards that contain writing in Braille and that its failure to do so violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and analogous state and city laws. Similar claims are asserted — by other plaintiffs, against other defendants — in hundreds of cases in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, including at least eight cases assigned to the undersigned. The defendants in many of thos..
More
ORDER
JESSE M. FURMAN, District Judge.
In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant does not sell gift cards that contain writing in Braille and that its failure to do so violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and analogous state and city laws. Similar claims are asserted — by other plaintiffs, against other defendants — in hundreds of cases in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, including at least eight cases assigned to the undersigned. The defendants in many of those cases, including this one, have filed substantially similar motions to dismiss.
To conserve the parties' and the Court's resources, the Court is inclined to stay this action until it has resolved the first of these motions, filed by the defendant in Mendez v. Papa John's USA, Inc., 19-CV-9892, at which point it would give the parties an opportunity to address the impact of the Court's ruling in that case (and any other courts' decisions in the interim).
Any objection to such a stay shall be filed on ECF no later than one week from the date of this Order. In light of the foregoing, the deadlines to file opposition and reply memoranda in connection with Defendant's motion to dismiss filed on March 6, 2020, are hereby extended by two weeks.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
