AMARI J. MOODY v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: January 5, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-08739
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: AMARI J. MOODY DATE FILED: __01/05/26__ Plaintiff, 25-CV-8739 (PAE) (BCM) -against- ORDER STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendants.

BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge. On December 16, 2025, this Court issued an Order Scheduling Initial Case Management Conference (Scheduling Order) (Dkt. 21), scheduling an in-person initial conference on January 7, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. On December 19, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion in which he asked the Court, inter alia, to set "an initial pretrial conference" to address various issues, including "[s]cheduling and case management." (Dkt. 30 at 3.) On December 30, 2025, I denied that portion of his December 19 motion as moot, "because the Court ha[d] already scheduled an initial pretrial conference" to take place on January 7. (Dkt. 32 at 1.) On January 1, 2026, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a "limited administrative stay of further case-management proceedings" pending (1) review of various objections that he has filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (including objections to my December 30 order, see Dkt. 35), and (11) determination of his "ADA accommodation request currently under review by the Court's designated ADA office." (Dkt. 33 at 1.) Although plaintiff's January 1 motion is addressed to the District Judge, it is within the scope of my reference (Dkt. 8), and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and is hereby GRANTED IN PART, to the extent that the conference originally scheduled for January 7, 2026 is ADJOURNED to February 19, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 20A of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. At the conference, the parties must be prepared to discuss the subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and (c) and in this Court's December 16 Scheduling Order.

' The Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to the Court. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131; McDowell v. McDonough, 2024 WL 4751692, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2024) ("[Bly definition, Title II of the ADA does not apply to the federal government or an agency, such as the federal courts.") (collecting cases). Consequently, the Court does not maintain a "designated ADA office." However, the Court strives to provide reasonable accommodations, where necessary, to assist a litigant in participating in court proceedings, such as coordinating assistive listening devices, CART services, sign language interpreters, accessible seating, and similar auxiliary aids and services.

If any party needs a further change to the date of the conference, that party must make the request, by letter, as soon as the need for a different date is known. Please see § 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices for a description of what information must be contained in that letter. Defendant's answer or other response to the Complaint — including its anticipated motion to compel arbitration (see, e.g., Dkt. 31 at 2) — remains due on January 20, 2026. (See Dkt. 16.) Opposition and reply briefs with respect to the motion to compel arbitration will be due in accordance with Local Civ. R. 6.1(b), unless the parties stipulate or the Court orders otherwise. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. 33. Dated: New York, New York January 5, 2026 SO ORDERED. eli BARBARA MOSES United States Magistrate Judge