Joiner v. NHL Enterprises, Inc.

Background

Zachary Joiner and other plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against NHL Enterprises, Inc. and the NHL. They claimed that people who signed up for newsletters through National Hockey League team websites were not told that the defendants’ use of Facebook Pixel would capture and transfer their personal identifying information to Facebook. The complaint alleges a violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s authority to hear a case, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a claim. Among other arguments, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that they were “consumers” under the Video Privacy Protection Act. The opinion states that the motion to dismiss was fully briefed but does not resolve it.

Motion to Stay

The plaintiffs moved to stay, or temporarily pause, the case while the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered Salazar v. National Basketball Association. They argued that the appeal could resolve the question of who may qualify as a “subscriber” under the Video Privacy Protection Act. The defendants opposed the stay, noting that their dismissal motion raised other grounds that did not depend on the appeal.

Judge Moses had denied the stay motion on November 15, 2023, because no discovery or other litigation activity was underway. She reconsidered that decision after the Second Circuit announced that it would hear argument in Salazar during the week of April 1, 2024.

Analysis

The court explained that district courts have discretion to stay proceedings to manage their cases efficiently. It considered the interests of the plaintiffs, defendants, the courts, nonparties, and the public. The court concluded that the balance of interests favored a stay because the Second Circuit’s decision could resolve the case or at least resolve one of the five challenges raised in the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

The court also found that a stay would conserve the parties’ time and effort. Without a stay, a party could object to a report and recommendation concerning the “subscriber” issue and require additional briefing while the Second Circuit’s decision remained pending. The court rejected the defendants’ general claims of expense, business uncertainty, and reputational risk as insufficient to show specific prejudice beyond the ordinary delay caused by a stay.

Disposition

Judge Moses granted the plaintiffs’ motion to stay. The Clerk of Court was directed to mark the case as stayed. Within seven days after the Second Circuit decides Salazar, the parties must file a joint letter addressing any effect of that decision on this case. The opinion did not rule on the defendants’ motion to dismiss or on the merits of the plaintiffs’ statutory claims.