Skip to content
Freelancer RightsKnow what you are owed, and why

Court dispute group

Maplebear Inc. (d/b/a Instacart) v. City of New York et al.

Records preserved here
1 record — an opinion count, not a count of dockets or filings
Court(s)
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Docket number(s)
SDNY 1:25-cv-09979, Document 40
Citation(s)
2026 WL 181637
Latest record in this collection
January 22, 2026 — this is the latest document collected, not a docket-status check
Where these records came from
decision_watch_candidates (Codex daily discovery), approved by the owner on September 8, 2026

Read this alongside the records

  • This is a regulatory statutory-scope case, not a freelancer's recovery claim. NYS FIFA appears as a claimed preemption source against city local laws.
  • Preliminary-injunction denial decided on likelihood of success, not a final merits ruling. A notice of interlocutory appeal from this opinion (Doc. 43) is on the public docket; no appellate or stay outcome was checked.

Opinion history

Ordered oldest to newest. Summaries describe what each document says; they do not endorse any court’s reading of the statute.

  1. January 22, 2026Direct FIFA rulingRecord 1

    Maplebear Inc. (d/b/a Instacart) v. City of New York et al.

    Court
    U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
    Docket
    SDNY 1:25-cv-09979, Document 40
    Citation
    2026 WL 181637
    Why it is here
    Statutory-scope challenge: Instacart argued that NYS FIFA (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 1410–15) field- and conflict-preempts New York City grocery-delivery local laws. Not an individual freelancer's recovery claim.
    Preserved summary of what the court did
    Judge Koeltl denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court rejected Instacart's NYS FIFA field- and conflict-preemption arguments (pp. 18–22), finding no likelihood of success, and also found no irreparable harm and that the equities and public interest did not favor relief. Preliminary-relief ruling on a likelihood-of-success standard, not a final merits judgment.
    Award
    No damages sought or awarded — injunctive/declaratory challenge
    Claim amount
    Not applicable
    Ultimate outcome
    Not verified
    Issues
    NYS FIFA statutory scope; field and conflict preemption; city regulation of app-based delivery; preliminary injunction
    Where this appears in the document
    NYS FIFA preemption discussion at printed pp. 18–22 of the saved PDF (field preemption pp. 18–19; conflict preemption pp. 19–22).
    Review scope
    Opinion relevance and stated ruling only; full docket and later treatment not comprehensively checked; a notice of interlocutory appeal from this opinion (Doc. 43) appears on the public docket, and no appellate or stay outcome has been checked.

    Source and saved documents

Citation connections

Quoted citations in the saved opinion

Each line below was read in the saved document itself, with the page it appears on. A citation shows that the court referred to the other matter; it is not an endorsement of the outcome, and this is not a full table of authorities.

  • Quoted in the documentCited by Petty v. Maison Hospitality Furnishings et al.

    …Petty (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2026), original PDF p. 18, cites this opinion for the proposition that the NYS FIFA “is modeled off a similar New York City law that was passed in 2017.”…

Limits on this entry

No comprehensive later-treatment research, full-docket retrieval or payment verification was performed for this matter. Saved files are copies of public records, not certified copies. Snapshot date: September 8, 2026. Full methodology and coverage.