The opinion
& Port !
ate, G Anne P, Davis
Arnold (on Or er +1 202.942.6197 Direct
Anne. Davis@arnoldporter.com
February 24, 2025
BY ECF
APPLICATION GRANTED
The Honorable John G. Koeltl $0 ORDERED
Daniel Patrick Moynihan MW,
United States Courthouse □□ UA beg
New York, NY 10007-1312 25 ROSES. Dod.
Re: Jnre: Visa Debit Card Antitrust Litigation, 1:24-cv-07435-JGK —
Consent Motion for Partial Stay of Litigation
Dear Judge Koeltl:
On behalf of defendant Visa Inc. (“Visa”), we respectfully submit this letter motion
on consent of plaintiffs to request a stay of litigation as to certain putative class
representatives and certain claims in the above-captioned case.
As set forth in the Rule 26(f) Report and Case Management Plan (ECF No. 98) that
Your Honor entered on January 28, 2025, Visa believes that some of the claims the card-
acceptor plaintiffs have asserted violate a Rule 23(b)(3) class settlement release and final
judgement entered in MDL 1720, Jn re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, No. 05-MD-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (“MDL 1720”). See
Superseding and Amended Definitive Class Settlement Agreement of the Rule 23(b)(3)
Class Plaintiffs and the Defendants, ECF No. 7257-2 (“MDL 1720 Settlement
Agreement”); Final Approval Order, ECF No. 7818 (“Final Judgment”),' In particular,
Visa believes there are two putative class representatives” who released their claims for the
conduct at issue in this litigation, and they are purporting to represent a putative class of
! Plaintiffs here are also members of a certified non-opt-out Rule 23(b)(2) class action in
MDL 1720, which raises the same integral facts and involves the same transactions as the
present case. See Equitable Relief Class Action Consolidated Class Action Complaint, Jn
re Payment Card, No. 05-MD-1720 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2017); DDMB, Inc. v. Visa, inc.,
05-MD-1720, 2021 WL 6221326 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2021) (Class Certification Order). A
final judgment entered in that case thus will act as res judicata as to Plaintiffs’ injunctive
relief claims here. Visa does not agree to litigate here injunctive relief claims that were or
could have been brought in that Rule 23(b)(2) class action and Visa will assert its rights if
and when this issue becomes ripe.
2 -Yabla, Inc. and R&N Productions LLC d/b/a SewRobQnE.
| Amold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
250 West 55th Street | New York, NY 10019-9710 | www.arnoldporter.com
US 253726341
Arnold &:Porter
February 24, 2025
Page 2
card acceptors—those who accepted Visa debit cards between 2012 and January 2019—
who also have released their claims.
As explained in the Rule 26(f) Report (ECF No. 98), the settlement court (i.c., the
Eastern District of New York) retains exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the scope of the
released claims under the MDL 1720 Settlement Agreement. See Final Judgment ff [8-
19 (“this Court hereby retains continuing [and exclusive] jurisdiction . . . to enforce the
[MDL 1720 Settlement Agreement]”). Visa and the card-acceptor plaintiffs have agreed
to cooperate in Visa’s further investigation with respect to the status of another named
Plaintiff (Broadway Grill) and that Visa will move to enforce the MDL 1720 Settlement
Agreement before the end of next month. While this issue is being litigated, Visa is entitled
to an immediate stay of this action until Visa’s motion to enforce the class release is decided
by the settlement court:
In the event that the provisions of this Superseding and Amended
Class Settlement Agreement or the Rule 23(b)(3) Class Settlement
Order and Final Judgment are asserted by any Defendant or other
Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class Released Party as_a ground for a
defense, in whole or in part, to any claim or cause of action, or are
otherwise raised as an objection in any other suit, action, or
proceeding by a Rule 23(b)(3) Class Plaintiff or member of the Rule
23(b)(3) Settlement Class, it is hereby agreed that the Rule 23(b)(3)
Settlement Class Released Parties shall be entitled to an immediate
stay of that suit, action, or proceeding until after the Court has
entered an order or judgment determining any issues relating to the
defense or objections based on such provisions, and no further
judicial review of such order or judgment is possible.
Final Judgment § 20 (emphasis added). Notwithstanding Visa’s right to seek a full stay of
this action, in light of the government’s pending related action (24-cv-7214) and in the
interest of efficiency for the parties and convenience of witnesses, Visa has agreed to
proceed with this action as to unreleased named Plaintiffs and putative class members and
unreleased claims, as set forth in the Rule 26(f} Report (ECF No. 98).
Accordingly, in order to preserve Visa’s rights under the MDL 1720 Settlement -
, Agreement, and on consent of Plaintiffs, Visa respectfully requests that this Court stay
| litigation as to Yabla, Inc. and R&N Productions LLC d/b/a SewRobQnE and as to all
| released claims asserted by the card-acceptor Plaintiffs (i.e., all claims asserted by or on
| behalf of entities that accepted Visa- or Mastercard-branded cards from January 1, 2004 to
Arnold é&Porter
February 24, 2025
Page 3
January 25, 2019) until final resolution of Visa’s forthcoming motion to enforce the MDL
| 1720 Settlement Agreement.
Thank you for considering this request.
Respectfully Submitted,
/si Anne P. Davis
Anne P. Davis
Copies to all counsel of record by ECF