UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, -against- DADDY’S HOUSE RECORDINGS INC., CE OPCO, LLC d/b/a COMBS GLOBAL f/k/a COMBS Case No. 1:24-cv-07778 (JLR) ENTERPRISES LLC, BAD BOY MEMORANDUM ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC., BAD BOY OPINION AND ORDER PRODUCTIONS HOLDINGS, INC., BAD BOY BOOKS HOLDINGS, INC., BAD BOY ENTERTAINMENT LLC, BAD BOY PRODUCTIONS LLC, and ORGANIZATIONAL DOES 1-10, Defendants. JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff John Doe, proceeding anonymously, brings this action pursuant to the New York City Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law (“VGMVPL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 10-1101 et seq. See generally Dkt. 1 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”). Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint. See Dkt. 47. The parties now move for a stay of this action during the pendency of two appeals before the Second Circuit: Parker v. Alexander, No. 25-487 (2d Cir. filed Mar. 3, 2025), and Doe v. Black, No. 25-564 (2d Cir. filed Mar. 11, 2025). See Dkt. 72; see also Order, Black, No. 25-564 (2d Cir. Apr. 16, 2026), ECF No. 46.1 (directing Parker and Black to be heard in tandem). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the parties’ request. In Parker and Black, the Second Circuit is expected to address a question raised in the instant case: whether the VGMVPL is preempted by the New York Child Victims Act (“CVA”), id. § 214-g, and Adult Survivor’s Act (“ASA”),

-j. See Brief and Special Appendix for Plaintiff-Appellant, Parker, No. 25-487 (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2025), ECF No. 23.1. The CVA and ASA — enacted in 2019 and 2022, respectively — established revival windows for adult victims of sexual offenses and adult survivors of child sexual offenses to file otherwise time-barred claims. See

-g, 214-j. In 2022, prior to the enactment of the ASA, New York City Council amended the City’s VGMVPL to create a revival window for victims of gender-motivated violence. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 10-1105. The district court in Black held that the VGMVPL is not preempted by either the

CVA or ASA, whereas the district court in Parker held that it is preempted by both — accordingly, the VGMVPL claim in Black survived dismissal while the VGMVPL claim in Parker was dismissed as untimely. See Black,

, at *1, *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2024); Parker, No. 24-cv-04813 (LAK),

, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2025). In the instant case, Defendants seek dismissal of the Complaint based on the same preemption argument that was rejected in Parker but accepted in Black. See Dkt. 49 at 6-10. “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

(1936)). “Court generally consider five factors in determining whether to stay a proceeding, including: (1) the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with the civil litigation as balanced against the prejudice to the plaintiffs if delayed; (2) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; (3) the interests of the courts; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest.” Radosti v. Hudson’s Bay Co., No. 18-cv-12266 (VSB),

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2020) (quoting Fagan v. Republic of Austria, No. 08-cv-06715 (LTS) (JCF),

, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2009)). “[T]he first and second factors are the ‘most critical.’” Schiller-Egles v. PromptCare Cos., Inc., No. 23-cv-06790 (KMK),

, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2025) (quoting Gabay v. Roadway Movers, Inc., No. 22-cv-06901,

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2023)). The Court will grant the requested stay here primarily because both parties seek the stay. “The Second Circuit’s decision . . . could contain guidance that ‘would allow this litigation to proceed on a reasonable and efficient basis.’” Addi v. Int’l Bus. Machs., Inc.,

No. 23-cv-05203 (NSR),

, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2024) (quoting Lamb v. Forbes Media LLC, No. 22-cv-06319 (ALC),

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2024)). The parties, all of whom consent to the stay, “stand to benefit from gaining clarity on the scope of the [VGMVPL] before engaging in potentially expensive — and uncertain — litigation.” Doe v. Alexander, No. 25-cv-01631 (JAV),

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2025) (alteration in original) (quoting Leslie v. Thompson Reuters Corp., No. 22-cv- 07936 (JHR),

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2023)). Otherwise, the Court risks ruling at odds with the Second Circuit’s decision and delaying resolution of the action further.

“Under these circumstances, staying the case would also preserve judicial resources, which serves the interests of the courts and the public.” Pry v. Auto-Chlor Sys.,

LLC, No. 23-cv-04541,

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2024). For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint request to stay this case pending the resolution of the appeals in Parker and Black. The parties shall file a joint status letter with the Court no later than August 14, 2025, and every ninety (90) days thereafter. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 72 and mark this case as stayed. Dated: May 16, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED. stich United States District Judge