Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 16, 2025

Boatner v. SSPS, LLC

Judge
Ho
Docket
1:25-cv-03251
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Boatner v. SSPS, LLC, Judge Ho denied Defendants’ request to postpone the initial conference, which will proceed as scheduled, and reserved judgment on other requests.

Who this affects

The order affects Plaintiff and all Defendants by keeping the initial pretrial conference scheduled for June 17, 2025; it does not resolve the request to pause discovery or the anticipated arbitration and personal-jurisdiction motions.

What happened

In Boatner v. SSPS, LLC, Defendants asked the court to postpone the initial pretrial conference and pause discovery while they prepared a motion to require arbitration. They also said some Defendants planned to ask for dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff opposed pausing discovery.

The court denied Defendants’ request to postpone the initial pretrial conference. The conference will proceed by Microsoft Teams on June 17, 2025, as scheduled. The opinion does not say that the court decided the anticipated arbitration or personal-jurisdiction motions.

Judge Dale E. Ho reserved judgment on Defendants’ remaining requests for relief, including their request for a conference about pausing discovery. The order therefore resolves the scheduling request but does not resolve the underlying lawsuit or the anticipated motions.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Boatner v. SSPS, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-03251
Judge
Ho
Date
June 16, 2025

Background

Plaintiff filed a putative class action challenging the legality of various social gaming websites operated by the Operator Defendants. The opinion identifies the Operator Defendants as SSPS, LLC, doing business as Sportzino; SCPS LLC, doing business as Zula Casino; and Social Gaming LLC, doing business as Fortune Coins. It identifies Blazesoft Ltd. and Blazegames, Inc. as Affiliate Defendants.

Defendants said they would respond to the complaint with a motion to compel arbitration and to pause the case while arbitration is considered. The Affiliate Defendants also planned to seek dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, meaning they would argue that the court lacks authority over them. Defendants asked to postpone the initial pretrial conference and to hold a conference about pausing discovery while those motions were pending. Plaintiff opposed pausing discovery and proposed limiting discovery to issues concerning personal jurisdiction and arbitration.

Ruling

The court denied Defendants’ request to postpone the initial pretrial conference. The conference will proceed as scheduled by Microsoft Teams on June 17, 2025. The order does not decide whether arbitration is required, whether the court has personal jurisdiction over any Defendant, or whether discovery will be paused. Instead, Judge Dale E. Ho reserved judgment on Defendants’ remaining requests for relief.

Effect of the Order

The initial pretrial conference remains scheduled. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the request to pause discovery, and it does not resolve the anticipated arbitration or personal-jurisdiction motions.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.