The opinion
et Ae ee ON bea EE Pode WS ad A Oy oe MST
August 13, 2025
Via ECF ECF uf 7. ee 16 2
The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan [ | [i \ □ iP ry
United States District Judge Ww i \ wf eh □□ Le i □□□
500 Pearl Street ie .
New York, NY 10007 . espe SDNY
DOCUMENT
Re: Davitashvili et al. v. Grubhub Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-03000 “Ioce ee FILED
ee
Dear Judge Kaplan: [pate FILED: ORla)/2S
The parties write to provide a status update. On June 30, 2023, □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□
pending resolution of Defendants’ appeals of the Court’s order denying Defendants’ motion to
compel arbitration. Dkt. No. 126. On March 13, 2025, the Second Circuit issued an opinion
affirming in part and reversing in part, Dkt. No. 130, holding that an arbitrator needed to decide
whether Plaintiffs’ claims against Uber were subject to arbitration, but that “Grubhub’s arbitration
clause does not apply to Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims against Grubhub.” /d. at 3-4.
On April 4, 2025, the Second Circuit issued the mandate, Dkt. No. 131, remanding for this
Court “to adjudicate the merits of the complaint with respect to Grubhub and for further
proceedings consistent with [its] opinion.” Jd. at 1. The parties have met and conferred but have
been unable to agree upon a proposed schedule to move the case forward. The parties’ positions
are set forth below.
Plaintiffs’ position: The Court lift the stay and permit discovery to resume. The parties
sought the stay for two reasons. First, under Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736 (2023), the
stay was required “with respect to the five named plaintiffs subject to both Defendants’ 9 U.S.C.
§ 16(a) appeals.” Dkt. No. 125 at 1. Second, although two named plaintiffs (Drewey and
Bensimon) were not subject to both appeals, those plaintiffs could not represent “one of the three
proposed classes”—namely, the class asserting claims in connection with their purchases through
non-Defendant platforms, like Doordash. fd. As a result, in the parties’ view, moving forward
before the appeals were resolved “posed many risks,” including “duplicative and inefficient”
discovery and “multiple rounds of class certification proceedings.” Jd,
Neither of these issues is present now. The resolution of Defendants’ appeals means that
Coinbase no longer applies. In addition, none of the named plaintiffs’ claims is subject to
arbitration with Grubhub, and although five named plaintiffs’ claims may be subject to arbitration
with Uber,! the remaining two plaintiffs can represent each of the three classes asserting claims
against Uber. Accordingly, the concerns that the parties expressed two years ago regarding judicial
economy no longer apply. Indeed, the parties presupposed that the stay would end when
| Plaintiffs view Uber’s argument that Plaintiffs’ claims are arbitrable as meritless, including
because it is inconsistent and irreconcilable with this Court’s order denying Uber’s motion to
compel arbitration and the Second Circuit’s order holding that Plaintiffs’ identical claims against
Grubhub are not subject to arbitration.
Memorandum Endorsement Davitashvili v. Grubhub Inc., 20-cy-3000 (LAK)
The stay of this acting pending appeal (Dkt 126) is lifted. Plaintiffs shall file an
amended complaint by September 30, 2025. Fact discovery shall be completed by December 16,
2025. Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification and serve any corresponding expert
report(s) by January 16, 2026. Defendants shall file any opposition and serve any corresponding
expert report(s) by March 17, 2026. Plaintiffs shall file any reply in support of the motion for class
certification and rebuttal expert report(s) by May 15, 2026.
SO ORDERED. .
Dated: August 21, 2025 WK .
bas A. Kaplan
United States District Judge