The opinion
oVini
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #:
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 01/23/2025
HAO ZHE WANG,
Plaintiff, :
24-CV-2371 (JGLC) (RWL)
- against - :
ORDER
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS,
et al., :
Defendants.
ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, United States Magistrate Judge.
This order resolves the motions of Defendants National Association of Realtors
(“NAR”), Halstead Manhattan, LLC (“Halstead”), Brown Harris Stevens Residential Sales,
LLC (“BHS”), and Real Estate Board of New York (“REBNY”) (collectively, “Moving
Defendants”) for a continuation of the temporary stay previously imposed in the case
pending further developments in Burnett v. NAR, et al., No. 4:23-CV-332 (W.D. Mo.), a
nationwide class action of which Plaintiff is a class member. The Moving Defendants
request continuation of the stay pending resolution of Plaintiff's appeal of the final order
and judgment approving the settlement in Burnett v NAR. (See Dkts. 88, 89.) The
requests are GRANTED.
A significant reason for the stay is the prospect of inefficient and burdensome
piecemeal litigation that may occur depending on the outcome of the Eighth Circuit
appeal. A continued stay is also consistent with the continuation of stays in other similar
cases, including those previously ordered by this Court. See March v. REBNY, No. 23-
CV-9995 at Dkt. 281 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2025); Friedman v. REBNY, No. 24-CV-405, at
Dkt. 155 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2025). The parties have not identified any concerns posed by
a stay with respect to non-parties. The only prejudice that Plaintiff has 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 Plaintiff has a valid interest in
seeing his case progress in timely fashion, the prejudice to Plaintiff 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).
Plaintiff’s arguments against continuation of the stay are not persuasive. (See Dkt.
90.) First, Plaintiff argues that his claim – as a direct purchaser of real property – is
distinct from and not covered by the release or other provisions in the Burnett settlement.
Plaintiff ignores, however, that the scope of released claims in the Burnett settlement
expressly “extends to transactions where Settlement Class members either sold or
purchased a home on any MLS nationwide.” (Burnett Final Approval Order at 78; Burnett
Final Judgment at 3.) The Burnett court enjoined all members of the settlement class
who did not opt out “from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or pursuing as
a plaintiff or class member any Released Claims against any of the Released Parties.”
(Burnett Final Judgment at 2.) While Plaintiff disputes whether his claim in the instant
action is a “Released Claim,” the Burnett court expressly retained “continuing and
exclusive jurisdiction” over members of the Settlement Class, with respect to, inter alia,
interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement “including with respect
to the membership and scope of the Settlement Class, Released Claims, and Released
Parties.” (Burnett Final Judgment at 3.) It is most sensible to stay the instant action
pending appellate review and consideration of the judgment incorporating those
provisions.
Plaintiff also argues that a stay is not warranted specifically with respect to
Defendants Halstead and BRS because, at the time that he filed his objections to the
Burnett settlement, Plaintiff allegedly was not aware that Halstead and BRS had opted in
to the settlement as defendants. Moving Defendants have debunked that assertion. (See
Dkt. 92 at 2-3 (“on September 30, 2024, again prior to Plaintiff's filing his objection in
Burnett, the fact of the [BRS/Halstead] settlement was made public on the Burnett
docket”).)
Accordingly, this action is stayed pending determination in the Burnett appeal or
such other order of the Court.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the letter motions at Dkts.
88 and 89.
SO ORDERED.
li
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: January 23, 2025
New York, New York
Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record.