No. 25-7682October Term 2025Before Arguments
Dana Escoffier, Petitioner v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Case status
- Current stage
- Before Arguments
- Latest event
- Accepted by the Court
- Decision timing
- No window until argument is scheduled.
- What it's about
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Question presented
1. Pursuant to FRCP Rule 56 (c)(1)(A), when there is a genuine dispute as to material fact, summary judgment cannot be granted. Should the USDC 2nd Circuit have dismissed plaintiffs case by granting summary judgment to the defendant when there are genuine isuues of material fact in dispute? 2. On appeal, the plaintiff requested appointment of pro-bono counsel. The Court of Appeals 2nd Ciruit denied request for appointment for pro-bono counsel and dismissed plaintiffs appeal. Should Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit have dismissed plaintiffs appeal without any briefing having been submitted when the time to submit the appeal had not expired? 3. Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit did not examine plaintiffs meritorious arguments that would have been presented on appeal. Was the USCA 2nd Circuit just, fair, neutral and impartial by dismissal of plaintiffs appeal before submission of plainttiffs Brief for the appeal? 4. By way of faithful execution of Law by trier-of-fact, was the dismissal of plaintiffs case prejudicial to plaintiff/Appellant? 5. Can the the USDC and USCA, 2nd Circuits assume and conclude there is no probative value to a pro se plaintiffs case and dismiss the plaintiffs case arbitrarily without fact finding?
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit / Accepted by the Court
- Area
Supreme Court case awaiting argument
Timing
Expected by late June 2026, if argued this term
The Court granted review but has not yet scheduled oral argument. Once argued, the median case reaches a decision in 94 days. Nearly all cases are decided by the end of the term in which they are argued.
Briefing
What it's about
Dana Escoffier is asking the Supreme Court to review lower-court decisions in her case against Whole Foods Market Group. Her petition says the courts granted summary judgment (ended the case without a trial) despite factual disputes and later dismissed her appeal after denying her request for pro bono counsel.
Argument
The case has not been scheduled for oral argument. The petition says the lower courts ignored factual disputes and that the appeals court denied requested pro bono counsel and dismissed the appeal before briefing.
Impact
The case could matter for people handling civil cases without lawyers. For example, a self-represented person suing a large company may care whether factual disputes require a trial and a full appeal.
What is Dana Escoffier v. Whole Foods about?
The petition says lower courts ended Escoffier's case even though important facts were still disputed. It also says the appeals court dismissed her appeal after denying counsel and before briefing.
Who could be affected if the Court takes Escoffier's case?
Self-represented people in civil lawsuits could be most affected. A ruling could shape when judges may end cases early and how appeals courts handle unbriefed appeals.
What happens next in Dana Escoffier v. Whole Foods?
The Supreme Court has not scheduled oral argument. Watch for another scheduling move from the Court; no decision window is available yet.
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Jul 25, 2026
- Method
- Methodology


