Dash Markets, Inc. v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, W.D. New York
• Decided: October 21, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00355
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DASH MARKETS, INC., DECISION and Plaintiff, ORDER v. 25-CV-355-JLS-LGF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

APPEARANCES: LIPPES MATHIAS, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff RANDALL P. ANDREOZZI, of Counsel 9145 Main Street Clarence, New York 14031

PAMELA BONDI ATTORNEY GENERAL Attorney for Defendant SARAH M. STONER, Trial Attorney, Tax Division, of Counsel U. S. Department of Justice PO Box 55 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044

In this action requesting Defendant remit $3 million in Employee Retention Credits, by papers filed October 1, 2025, Defendant requests further proceedings in the case be stayed, pending the restoration of funding for the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), pursuant to the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1342 which Defendant maintains prohibits further work on the case until such funding is restored. (Dkt. 16). Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s request (Dkt. 20) arguing that contrary to Defendant’s assertion, that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has not determined Plaintiff is entitled to such credits, the IRS has in fact so determined and that Defendant’s failure to remit the payment of the claimed credit to Plaintiff will cause Plaintiff to be severely financially harmed. Courts have inherent power to grant a stay of proceedings. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 249 (1936). Requests for a stay of proceedings are

subject to the sound discretion of the court. See Collazos v. United States, 368 F.3d 190, 201 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Europcar Italia, S.p.A. v. Maiellano Tours, Inc., 156 F.3d 310, 316-17 (2d Cir. 1998) (recognizing district courts have broad discretion to stay proceedings)). In this case, regardless of whether the DOJ is, as Defendant asserts, prohibited by the Anti-Deficiency Act from working during the current lapse of Congressional funding on this case, the court is disinclined to subject Defendant’s counsel to the risk of violating the Act. Nor does the court find Plaintiff’s alleged financial plight to constitute a potential emergency exception to the Act.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s request (Dkt. 16) for a stay of the instant case, including the October 3, 2025 deadline for Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a response to Plaintiff’s request (Dkt. 12) for permission to file a reply to Defendant’s Answer, is GRANTED. SO ORDERED. /s/ Leslie G. Foschio _________________________________ LESLIE G. FOSCHIO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dates: October 21, 2025 Buffalo, New York