Clark v. BRC Inc.
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:23-cv-05340
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Clark v. BRC Inc., Judge Lehrburger granted the parties’ joint request to pause the case while a related warrant dispute is resolved.
The plaintiffs—John Brian Clark, JBC Structured Products LLC, and Marathon Capital LLC—and the defendants—BRC Inc. and Black Rifle Coffee Company LLC—are affected because the case is stayed. The scheduled case-management conference was canceled.
What happened
In John Brian Clark, et al. v. BRC Inc., et al., the plaintiffs and defendants jointly asked the court to pause the case while a related case about exercising the same BRC warrants was resolved.
The requested pause covers motion practice, responses to the complaint, discovery and disclosure obligations, hearings, and conferences. The parties said the pause would serve their interests and conserve the court’s and third parties’ resources. Plaintiffs may end the pause with 30 days’ notice after certain events, including a summary-judgment decision in the related case, nine months after the stay begins, or another good reason.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted the joint request for a stay under the parties’ proposed terms and canceled the scheduled case-management conference.
The detailed version
- Clark v. BRC Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05340
- Robert Lehrburger
- Sept. 29, 2023
Background
John Brian Clark, JBC Structured Products LLC, and Marathon Capital LLC sued BRC Inc. and Black Rifle Coffee Company LLC. The parties jointly requested an interim stay, meaning a temporary pause in the case, while the court resolved a related action captioned Tang Capital Partners, L.P. v. BRC Inc., No. 22-cv-3476 (S.D.N.Y.). The opinion describes that action as involving a similar dispute about exercising the same BRC warrants.
Stay Factors
The court explained that it may pause a case to manage its docket efficiently. Courts in the district consider the interests of the plaintiffs, defendants, court, nonparties, and public, with particular attention to avoiding unfair prejudice. The court stated that all five factors favored a stay. The parties agreed that a stay served both sides’ interests, and the court concluded that a stay could streamline the litigation and conserve judicial and third-party resources, including by avoiding unnecessary or inefficient discovery.
Terms of the Order
The joint request for a stay was granted. Under the parties’ proposed terms, all motion practice, obligations to respond to the operative complaint, and discovery and disclosure obligations are stayed until the related action is resolved. Hearings and conferences are postponed until the stay ends. The plaintiffs may lift the stay on 30 days’ notice to defendants’ counsel after a summary-judgment decision in the related action, on a date nine months after the stay is entered, or for other good cause. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger also canceled the scheduled case-management conference.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.