Boatner v. SSPS LLC, et al.
- Ho
- 1:25-cv-03251
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Boatner v. SSPS, Judge Ho stayed discovery pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.
The plaintiff and all defendants are affected because discovery in the case is paused while the court considers the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.
What happened
In Boatner v. SSPS LLC, et al., the defendants asked the court to pause discovery while it considered their motion to require arbitration. The lawsuit challenges the legality of social gaming websites operated by the defendants, and the defendants argued that the plaintiff had agreed to arbitration and waived class claims through website terms.
The plaintiff opposed the stay and requested limited discovery about whether the court had personal jurisdiction over two affiliate defendants and about arbitration-related issues. The defendants argued that the court could decide the arbitration motion before any jurisdictional motion and that discovery could waste resources.
Judge Dale E. Ho ordered that discovery be stayed until the court resolves the motion to compel arbitration. The court also directed the Clerk to close ECF No. 50; the order did not decide whether arbitration must occur.
The detailed version
- Boatner v. SSPS LLC, et al. · No. 1:25-cv-03251
- Ho
- Oct. 23, 2025
Background
The plaintiff filed a putative class action challenging the legality of social gaming websites operated by the defendants. The defendants include SSPS LLC doing business as Sportzino, SCPS LLC doing business as Zula Casino, Social Gaming LLC doing business as Fortune Coins, Blazesoft Ltd., and Blazegames, Inc.
The defendants had filed a motion to compel arbitration, meaning they asked the court to require the plaintiff to pursue the dispute in arbitration rather than in court. They argued that the plaintiff accepted website terms and conditions through a clickwrap agreement when opening accounts, agreed to arbitrate disputes related to her accounts and the websites, and waived the right to pursue class claims. They also argued that the arbitration agreement covered claims against the affiliate defendants.
Discovery dispute
The defendants asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery while the arbitration motion was pending. They argued that discovery could be unnecessary and costly if the case were sent to arbitration and could create an argument that they had waived their right to seek arbitration.
The plaintiff requested limited discovery concerning personal jurisdiction over the affiliate defendants and arbitration-related issues. The plaintiff argued that the court had to resolve personal jurisdiction before deciding the arbitration motion. The defendants argued that the court could decide the arbitration motion first and that jurisdictional discovery was premature because the affiliate defendants had not yet filed their anticipated jurisdictional motion.
The opinion also states that the plaintiff had already opposed the arbitration motion and had not identified fact-dependent arguments that would benefit from discovery.
Ruling
Judge Dale E. Ho stayed discovery pending resolution of the motion to compel arbitration. The order did not decide the arbitration motion, the anticipated personal-jurisdiction motion, or the merits of the plaintiff’s claims. The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF No. 50.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.