Leifer v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
- Subramanian
- 1:24-cv-03994
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Leifer v. Live Nation, Judge Subramanian granted an application staying deadlines until the court addresses consolidation.
The ruling affects the plaintiffs and defendants in Leifer and the related Stevens case by pausing upcoming deadlines, adopting a schedule tied to the consolidation and arbitration motions, and postponing the initial pretrial conference.
What happened
In Leifer v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., the defendants asked to pause upcoming deadlines while the court considered a planned request to combine this case with Stevens v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. The plaintiffs did not oppose the request.
The parties proposed deadlines for any motion to compel arbitration and for later dismissal motions or answers if the cases were combined. They said pausing deadlines would avoid unnecessary work and expense. The two cases also had an initial pretrial conference scheduled for September 6, 2024.
The court granted the application, directed the plaintiffs to file their consolidation motion by August 16, 2024, and adopted the parties’ proposed deadlines. Judge Arun Subramanian also postponed the initial pretrial conference without setting a new date and directed the clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Leifer v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-03994
- Subramanian
- Aug. 5, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Abraham Leifer filed a class-action complaint on May 23,
- Defendants Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster L.L.C. had a deadline of August 9, 2024, to respond to or move against the complaint. Plaintiff Tamara Stevens filed a related complaint on May 29,
- In that case, the defendants’ response was due September 6,
- The parties in both cases were scheduled for an initial pretrial conference on September 6, 2024.
Counsel for the defendants learned that Stevens intended to seek appointment of interim class counsel and consolidation of the two cases. The defendants did not oppose consolidation if the parties used an agreed schedule: any motion to compel arbitration would be due 60 days after a consolidated complaint was filed, and any motion to dismiss or answer would be due 60 days after a ruling on the arbitration motion. The parties agreed that the plaintiffs would file the consolidation motion by August 16, 2024.
Ruling
The court stated that pausing the deadlines would avoid unnecessary pleading-related work while the consolidation issue was pending and would not prejudice either side. The application was granted. The court directed the plaintiffs to file their motion to consolidate by August 16, 2024, adopted the parties’ proposed deadlines, and adjourned the initial pretrial conference without setting a new date. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 37.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.