Stevens v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
- Subramanian
- 1:24-cv-04106
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Stevens v. Live Nation, Judge Subramanian granted an unopposed request to pause deadlines pending consolidation and postponed the initial conference.
The order affects plaintiff Tamara Stevens, the defendants Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster L.L.C., and the parties in the related Leifer case by changing upcoming deadlines and postponing the initial pretrial conference.
What happened
In Stevens v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., the defendants asked the court to pause upcoming deadlines while the court considered a planned request to combine Stevens’s case with a related case. The plaintiffs did not oppose the request and agreed to the proposed schedule.
The parties proposed that any request to require arbitration would be due 60 days after a combined complaint was filed. Any motion to dismiss or answer would then be due 60 days after the court ruled on the arbitration request. The plaintiffs expected to file the consolidation motion by August 16, 2024.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the application, directed the plaintiffs to file the consolidation motion by August 16, 2024, adopted the proposed deadlines, and postponed the initial pretrial conference without setting a new date. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 19.
The detailed version
- Stevens v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-04106
- Subramanian
- Aug. 5, 2024
Background
Tamara Stevens filed her complaint on May 29, 2024, and identified the case as related to Leifer v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. Defendants Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster L.L.C. asked the court to stay, or pause, all upcoming deadlines in both related cases while the parties pursued a motion to consolidate them. The plaintiffs did not oppose the request.
The parties had agreed that a motion to compel arbitration would be due 60 days after the filing of a consolidated complaint. If the consolidated complaint added additional named plaintiffs, the parties would meet and confer about an appropriate deadline for the arbitration motion. The parties also agreed that any motion to dismiss or answer would be due 60 days after the court ruled on the motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiffs anticipated filing the consolidation motion by August 16, 2024.
Court’s ruling
The court granted the application. It directed the plaintiffs to file their motion to consolidate by August 16, 2024, and stated that it would adopt the parties’ proposed deadlines. The court adjourned the initial pretrial conference without setting a new date and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 19. This order addressed scheduling and case management; it did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or the arbitration issue.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.