The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
DEWAYNE CARTER, et al.,
10 Case No. 23-cv-06325-RS
Plaintiffs,
11
v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
12 LIMITED INTERVENTION AND
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER,
13 ASSOCIATION, et al., DISMISS, OR STAY
14 Defendants.
15
16 Alex Fontenot and Mya Hollingshed are named plaintiffs in a putative class action
17 presently pending in the District of Colorado, which raises claims substantially similar to those
18 brought in this action, against the same defendants. See Fontenot, et al. v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic
19 Ass’n, et al., No. 1:23-cv-03076-CNS-STV (D. Col.). The Fontenot plaintiffs seek leave to
20 intervene herein for the limited purpose of bringing a motion to transfer, dismiss, or stay this
21 action pursuant to the “first-to-file rule.” Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the matter is suitable
22 for disposition without oral argument, and the hearing set for May 23, 2024, is vacated.
23 Although the Fontenot plaintiffs may not have direct interests in this litigation of the type
24 typically asserted by proposed intervenors, it is appropriate to allow them to intervene for the
25 limited purpose of reaching the merits of their motion to transfer, dismiss, or stay. That motion,
26 however, will be denied. Even though Fontenot was filed earlier than this action, the short
27 duration of time between the two filings (17 days) greatly diminishes the import of the first-to-file
1 Payless Shoesource, Inc., No. C-11-1892 EMC, 2012 WL 3277222, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9,
2 ||} 2012) and cases cited therein (“Courts have declined to apply the rule where the time between the
3 actions is relatively short because the two actions will not necessarily have progressed to different
4 || stages.”).
5 Moreover, as the Fontenot complaint itself expressly alleges, the broader issue of
6 || compensation and benefits for NCAA student-athletes, and the application of antitrust law to that
7 issue, has been the subject of ongoing litigation originating in this district for several years.
8 Indeed, this Court will be referring all discovery matters in this particular action to the same
9 Magistrate Judge who has, from the outset, handled discovery issues in that long standing and
10 || ongoing Northern District litigation. While there may be a closer identity between the claims
11 raised in Fontenot and those pleaded in this case, than between Fontenot and the earlier cases, it
a 12 would not be reasonable to conclude this case should be transferred, dismissed, or stayed in favor
13 of Fontenot under these particular circumstances.' The motion is therefore denied.
15 || ITISSO ORDERED.
16
|| Dated: April 29, 2024
.
Z 18
RICHARD SEEBORG
19 Chief United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24].
' It very well may be the case that judicial efficiency and economy would be best served if
25 Fontenot and this case were litigated together, a factor the District of Colorado may certainl
y y
6 consider when it evaluates the motion to transfer defendants recently filed in Fontenot. That
consideration, however, is not sufficient to support the strained application of the first-to-file rule
97 || that the Fontenot plaintiffs are requesting.
28
CASE No. 23-cv-06325-RS