Skechers U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. Easy Spirit LLC et al.

S.D. New York

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. Easy Spirit LLC et al.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided April 13, 2026·No. 1:26-cv-00755·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wee KX SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., : Plaintiffs, : 26-CV-755 (JMF) -v- : MEMORANDUM OPINION : AND ORDER EASY SPIRIT LLC et al., : Defendants. : wee KX JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On March 30, 2026, the deadline to answer, Defendants Easy Spirit LLC and Marc Fisher Holdings LLC filed a motion to stay this case pending the resolution of Skechers U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. ABG Rockport LLC et al., No. 24-CV-06708-ALC. See ECF No. 26. As the parties agree, see ECF No. 27, at 2; ECF No. 32, at 3, the Court must consider five factors in deciding whether to grant a stay: (1) the private interests of Plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with the civil litigation as balanced against the prejudice to Plaintiffs if delayed; (2) the private interests of and burden on Defendants; (3) the interests of the courts; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest. See, e.g., Consol. Edison Co. of New York v. United States, 30 F. Supp. 2d 385, 389 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (citing Kappel v. Comfort, 914 F. Supp. 1056, 1058 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (Mukasey, J.)). Ultimately, the Court must “balance the above-cited factors with the central focus of avoiding prejudice.” Jd. Weighing the factors here, the Court concludes that a stay is not warranted. Put simply, Defendants fail to demonstrate that the case before Judge Carter will materially narrow, let alone resolve, this case. Instead, the Court is confident that any inefficiencies can be adequately addressed through effective case management and, as appropriate, consideration of any rulings by Judge Carter. Staying the case will only result in delay and, thus, harm to Plaintiffs, the court system, and the public. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for a stay is DENIED. Plaintiffs perfunctory request for fees and costs, see ECF No. 32, at 11, is also DENIED. Defendants shall file their Answer no later than April 20, 2026. The initial pretrial conference scheduled for April 29, 2026, remains in effect, as does the deadline to file a joint letter and proposed Case Management Plan the Thursday before that conference. See ECF No. 12. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 26. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 13, 2026 New York, New York ESSE RMAN nited States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wee KX SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., : Plaintiffs, : 26-CV-755 (JMF) -v- : MEMORANDUM OPINION : AND ORDER EASY SPIRIT LLC et al., : Defendants. : wee KX JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On March 30, 2026, the deadline to answer, Defendants Easy Spirit LLC and Marc Fisher Holdings LLC filed a motion to stay this case pending the resolution of Skechers U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. ABG Rockport LLC et al., No. 24-CV-06708-ALC. See ECF No. 26. As the parties agree, see ECF No. 27, at 2; ECF No. 32, at 3, the Court must consider five factors in deciding whether to grant a stay: (1) the private interests of Plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with the civil litigation as balanced against the prejudice to Plaintiffs if delayed; (2) the private interests of and burden on Defendants; (3) the interests of the courts; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest. See, e.g., Consol. Edison Co. of New York v. United States, 30 F. Supp. 2d 385, 389 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (citing Kappel v. Comfort, 914 F. Supp. 1056, 1058 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (Mukasey, J.)). Ultimately, the Court must “balance the above-cited factors with the central focus of avoiding prejudice.” Jd. Weighing the factors here, the Court concludes that a stay is not warranted. Put simply, Defendants fail to demonstrate that the case before Judge Carter will materially narrow, let alone resolve, this case. Instead, the Court is confident that any inefficiencies can be adequately addressed through effective case management and, as appropriate, consideration of any rulings by Judge Carter. Staying the case will only result in delay and, thus, harm to Plaintiffs, the court system, and the public. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for a stay is DENIED. Plaintiffs perfunctory request for fees and costs, see ECF No. 32, at 11, is also DENIED. Defendants shall file their Answer no later than April 20, 2026. The initial pretrial conference scheduled for April 29, 2026, remains in effect, as does the deadline to file a joint letter and proposed Case Management Plan the Thursday before that conference. See ECF No. 12. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 26. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 13, 2026 New York, New York ESSE RMAN nited States District Judge

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. Easy Spirit LLC et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2026).

Pincite

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. Easy Spirit LLC et al. (Skechers U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. Easy Spirit LLC et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related