Joiner v. NHL Enterprises, Inc.
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:23-cv-02083
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Joiner v. NHL Enterprises, Judge Moses denied plaintiffs’ request to stay proceedings while the Second Circuit considered a related video-privacy appeal.
The plaintiffs’ request to pause the case was denied, so the proceedings were not stayed. The pending motion to dismiss remained before the court, and the plaintiff was required to notify the court after the Second Circuit decided the related appeal.
What happened
In Joiner v. NHL Enterprises, Inc., the plaintiffs asked the court to pause the case while the Second Circuit reviewed another case involving who qualifies as a “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act. The defendants opposed the request.
The plaintiffs argued that the appeal could affect the defendants’ pending request to dismiss the case. They also pointed to another case in which proceedings were paused while the appeal was pending.
Judge Barbara Moses denied the stay request. She explained that the motion to dismiss was fully briefed and that the parties were not conducting discovery. The plaintiff must notify the court by letter within one week after the appeals court decides the related case.
The detailed version
- Joiner v. NHL Enterprises, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-02083
- Lewis Kaplan
- Nov. 15, 2023
Background
Plaintiffs Zachary Joiner, Daniel Kassl, and Hanwook Nam asked the court to stay, or pause, the proceedings while the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered an expedited appeal in Salazar v. National Basketball Association. The plaintiffs said that appeal could affect the court’s decision on defendants’ pending motion to dismiss claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act, a federal privacy statute.
The plaintiffs argued that the appeal would clarify whether people who subscribe to certain goods or services qualify as “consumers” under the statute. They also cited another case in which proceedings had been stayed while the appeal was pending. The defendants opposed the requested stay. The opinion states that the motion to dismiss had been fully briefed.
Ruling
Judge Barbara Moses denied the application for a stay. The court was not persuaded that a formal stay was appropriate because the motion to dismiss was fully briefed and the parties were not engaged in discovery.
The court directed the plaintiff to advise it by letter within one week after the Court of Appeals decided the Salazar case. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.