Shimanovsky v. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc.

Filing 47

ORDER granting 38 Motion to Stay re: 38 MOTION to Stay . Accordingly, this case is stayed, including the upcoming deadline for Defendant to move to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. By no later than December 8, 202 1, the parties shall update the Court as to (1) whether the Clark settlement has been approved and the prospect of any appeal of such approval; (2) which individual Plaintiffs in the instant case have opted out of that settlement; and (3) the ongoing need for a stay in this action. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 11/18/2021) (tg)

Case 1:20-cv-03588-RA Document 47 Filed 11/18/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CARMEN RIVERA, LETISHA WILLIAMS,
LISA MACK, ROSEMARY VAVITSAS,
Plaintiffs,
v.

USDC-SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE FILED: 11/18/2021

No. 20-CV-3588 (RA)
ORDER

S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC.,
Defendant.

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:
On October 25, 2021, Defendant moved to stay this case until at least December 7, 2021 in
order to await final approval of a nationwide class settlement in Clark v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.,
No. RG20067897. Defendant represented that the resolution of the Clark case will subsume the class
claims in this action. Dkt. 38. On November 2, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to inform the Court
whether it opposed Defendant’s request by no later than November 5, 2021. Dkt. 42. Plaintiffs
opposed Defendant’s motion, largely arguing that the “unfair settlement in Clark is unlikely to receive
final approval.” Dkt. 43 at 10. Plaintiffs also contend that Defendant’s claim that the stay would be
short “is patently false” because an intervenor in Clark “has asserted she will appeal the court’s
decision” if final approval is granted. Id. at 14. Finally, Plaintiffs represent that they will not be
bound by the Clark settlement because “Plaintiffs . . . on behalf of themselves and all New York
purchasers of the Products, opted-out of the settlement.” Id. at 15. Defendant submitted a reply in
support of its motion to stay on November 16, 2021. Dkt. 46.

Case 1:20-cv-03588-RA Document 47 Filed 11/18/21 Page 2 of 2

Given the issues raised in the parties’ briefs, the Court finds that a brief stay is warranted to
evaluate the potential effect of the Clark settlement. Accordingly, this case is stayed, including the
upcoming deadline for Defendant to move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. By no later
than December 8, 2021, the parties shall update the Court as to (1) whether the Clark settlement has
been approved and the prospect of any appeal of such approval; (2) which individual Plaintiffs in the
instant case have opted out of that settlement; and (3) the ongoing need for a stay in this action.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 18, 2021
New York, New York
________________________________
Ronnie Abrams
United States District Judge

2