March v. Real Estate Board of New York
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:23-cv-09995
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In March v. Real Estate Board of New York, Judge Lehrburger granted REBNY’s stay request pending an Eighth Circuit appeal and denied or found moot related discovery requests.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the March and Friedman cases, particularly REBNY, are affected because the court granted a stay pending the Burnett appeal; the plaintiffs’ discovery request concerning REBNY’s settlement discussions was found moot and, to the extent not moot, denied.
What happened
In March v. Real Estate Board of New York and the related Friedman case, REBNY asked the court to pause the litigation while the Eighth Circuit considered an appeal in Burnett v. NAR. The plaintiffs opposed the stay and sought discovery about REBNY’s settlement discussions with NAR.
The court granted the stay. It reasoned that continuing against REBNY could create inefficient, piecemeal litigation because the appeal could affect which other defendants remain in the cases and whether they are covered by the Burnett settlement’s release. The court found that the plaintiffs’ interest in avoiding delay was outweighed by those concerns.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger found the plaintiffs’ discovery request moot and, to the extent it was not moot, denied it. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that REBNY’s request was improper because it was made by letter motion, and directed the Clerk to terminate the two listed letter motions.
The detailed version
- March v. Real Estate Board of New York · No. 1:23-cv-09995
- Robert Lehrburger
- Jan. 7, 2025
Background
This order resolves defendant Real Estate Board of New York, Inc.’s (REBNY’s) motion for a temporary stay in the two cases. REBNY sought a stay pending the Eighth Circuit’s resolution of the appeal in Burnett v. NAR. The plaintiffs opposed the stay and requested discovery concerning REBNY’s settlement discussions with NAR.
Stay ruling
The court granted REBNY’s request for a stay pending resolution of the Burnett appeal. The court focused on the risk of inefficient and burdensome piecemeal litigation. The plaintiffs had named numerous defendants that were also defendants in Burnett; many of those defendants were covered by the nationwide release in the court-approved Burnett settlement; and stays for many defendants had already been entered and approved in these cases. The defendants’ status could change depending on whether the Eighth Circuit upheld or overturned challenges to the NAR settlement.
The court stated that proceeding against REBNY without knowing the outcome of the appeal would be inefficient and unwieldy and would disserve the interests of the court, the defendants, and the public interest. The parties had not identified concerns about a stay affecting non-parties. The only prejudice identified by the plaintiffs was delay in prosecuting the cases. The court concluded that this prejudice was outweighed by the other interests supporting a stay.
Discovery request
The court stated that it was not basing the stay on whether REBNY might be engaged in separate settlement discussions with NAR. It therefore found the plaintiffs’ request for discovery into those discussions moot and, to the extent the request was not moot, denied it.
Procedural argument and disposition
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that REBNY’s stay application was procedurally improper because it was made by letter motion. The court stated that REBNY complied with the schedule and that the plaintiffs had substantively responded, making more extensive briefing unwarranted. The Clerk was directed to terminate the letter motions at Dkt. 281 in 23-CV-9995 and Dkt. 144 in 24-CV-405.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.