The opinion
USPU SUNT
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #:
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x DATE FILED: 01/07/2025 _
MONTY MARCH ET AL.,
23-CV-9995 (JGLC) (RWL)
Plaintiffs, :
- against -
REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, INC
ET AL.,
Defendants.
ROBERT FRIEDMAN ET AL.,
: 24-CV-405 (JGLC) (RWL)
Plaintiffs, :
- against -
ORDER
REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, INC
ET AL.,
Defendants.
ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, United States Magistrate Judge.
This order resolves defendant REBNY’s motion for a temporary stay filed
December 10, 2024. (See also correspondence dated December 13, 2024 and January
6, 2025.) The request for a stay pending resolution of the appeal of Burnett v NAR in the
Eighth Circuit is GRANTED.
The principal reason for the stay is the prospect of highly inefficient and
burdensome piecemeal litigation that may occur in the instant cases presented by the
facts that: Plaintiffs named numerous Defendants in the instant cases that also are
defendants in the Burnett case; many of those defendants are covered by the nationwide
release of the court-approved settlement in Burnett; that stays as to many of those
Defendants already have been entered into and so-ordered in the instant cases; and
those Defendants may or may not remain defendants in the instant cases depending on
whether the Eighth Circuit sustains or overrules challenges to the NAR Settlement. Even
Plaintiffs acknowledge “considerable uncertainty” as to which Defendants in the instant
actions will be released by Burnett. (12.13.24 Letter at 2.) Whether REBNY is or is not
currently “qualified as a covered entity under the NAR Settlement,” as Plaintiffs put it,
does not change those facts. (Id.)
Put another way, proceeding with the instant litigation against REBNY without
knowing the fate of many of the non-REBNY Defendants is inefficient and unwieldy and
disserves the interests of the Court, the Defendants, and the public interest. The parties
have not identified any concerns posed by a stay with respect to non-parties. The only
prejudice that Plaintiffs have identified is the delay in prosecution of the instant
proceedings. While the Court does not want to see litigation unnecessarily drawn out,
and recognizes that Plaintiffs have a valid interest in seeing their cases progress in timely
fashion, the prejudice to Plaintiffs from the delay is outweighed considerably by the other
interests for which the Court must account. See Poppel v. Rockefeller University Hospital,
No. 19-CV-1403, 2019 WL 3334476, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2019) (listing factors courts
consider when determining whether to grant a stay).
To be clear, the Court does not base its decision on the fact that REBNY may or
may not be in settlement discussions with NAR independent of the Burnett opt-in
settlement procedures. Plaintiffs’ request for discovery into REBNY’s settlement
discussions with NAR therefore is moot, and to the extent not moot, is DENIED.
Finally, the Court does not agree with Plaintiffs that REBNY’s stay application is
procedurally improper because it was made by letter motion. REBNY moved in
compliance with the schedule set by the Court, and Plaintiffs have substantively
responded to REBNY’s arguments. More extensive briefing at this juncture is
unwarranted.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the letter motions at Dkt.
281 in 23-CV-9995 and Dkt. 144 in 24-CV-405.
SO ORDERED.
wwe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: January 7, 2025
New York, New York
Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record.