Ewing v. VGW Ltd. et al
Filing
49
MEMORANDUM: Before the Court are unopposed motions filed by Defendants in six related cases to stay the Court's orders to remand the actions to the Circuit Court for Coffee County, Tennessee (the "State Court") until the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit fully disposes of the petitions to appeal. (Case No. 4:23-cv-55, Doc. 39; Case No. 4:23-cv-58, Doc. 45; Case No. 4:23-cv-60, Doc.48; Case No. 4:23-cv-61, Doc. 39; Case No. 4:23-cv-62, Doc. 45; Case No. 4:24 -cv-7, Doc. 45.). Accordingly, the Court will GRANT Defendants' motions (Case No. 4:23-cv-55, Doc. 39; Case No. 4:23-cv-58, Doc. 45; Case No. 4:23-cv-60, Doc. 48; Case No. 4:23-cv-61, Doc. 39; Case No. 4:23-cv-62, Doc. 45; Case No. 4:24-cv-7, Do c. 45) and STAY the orders to remand the actions to the State Court (Case No. 4:23-cv-55, Doc. 37; Case No. 4:23-cv-58, Doc. 42; Case No. 4:23-cv-60, Doc. 45; Case No. 4:23-cv-61, Doc. 37; Case No. 4:23-cv-62, Doc. 43; Case No. 4:24-cv-7, Doc. 43) un til the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit fully disposes of the petitions to appeal. See Memorandum for details.Signed by District Judge Curtis L Collier on 10/24/2024. (Copy of Memorandum mailed to the Coffee County Circuit Court Clerk). (LCK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT WINCHESTER
GINA V. BURT,
Plaintiff,
v.
PLAYTIKA, LTD. and PLAYTIKA
HOLDING CORP.,
Defendants.
SANDRA TUCKER DUCKWORTH,
Plaintiff,
v.
YELLOW SOCIAL INTERACTIVE, LTD.,
Defendant.
LAUREN EWING,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCIPLAY CORP. and SCIPLAY
GAMES, LLC,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:23-cv-55
Judge Curtis L. Collier
Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee
Case No. 4:23-cv-58
Judge Curtis L. Collier
Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee
Case No. 4:23-cv-60
Judge Curtis L. Collier
Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee
JENNIFER LYNN BEAN
Plaintiff,
v.
ARISTOCRAT LEISURE, LLC,
ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
and PRODUCT MADNESS, INC.,
Defendants.
LAUREN EWING,
Plaintiff,
v.
VGW LTD., VGW HOLDINGS US,
INC., VGW US, INC., and VGW
LUCKYLAND, INC.,
Defendants.
JENNIFER LYNN BEAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPINX GAMES, LTD.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:23-cv-61
Judge Curtis L. Collier
Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee
Case No. 4:23-cv-62
Judge Curtis L. Collier
Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee
Case No. 4:24-cv-7
Judge Curtis L. Collier
Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee
MEMORANDUM
Before the Court are unopposed motions filed by Defendants in six related cases to stay
the Court’s orders to remand the actions to the Circuit Court for Coffee County, Tennessee (the
“State Court”) until the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit fully disposes of the petitions to
2
appeal.1 (Case No. 4:23-cv-55, Doc. 39; Case No. 4:23-cv-58, Doc. 45; Case No. 4:23-cv-60, Doc.
48; Case No. 4:23-cv-61, Doc. 39; Case No. 4:23-cv-62, Doc. 45; Case No. 4:24-cv-7, Doc. 45.)
Plaintiffs brought actions in Tennessee state court seeking to recover gambling losses of
Tennessee residents pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-19-105. (E.g., Case No. 4:23cv-55, Doc. 1-1 at 2–13.) Defendants timely removed the actions from the State Court on the
grounds that this Court has original jurisdiction based both on traditional diversity of citizenship
and under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005) (“CAFA”),
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and 1332(d), respectively. (E.g., Case No. 4:23-cv-55, Doc. 1
¶¶ 22–23, 31.) Plaintiffs moved to remand the cases to the State Court. (E.g., Case No. 4:23-cv55, Doc. 18.) On September 26, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motions and remanded the
cases to State Court. (Case No. 4:23-cv-55, Doc. 37; Case No. 4:23-cv-58, Doc. 42; Case No.
4:23-cv-60, Doc. 45; Case No. 4:23-cv-61, Doc. 37; Case No. 4:23-cv-62, Doc. 43; Case No. 4:24cv-7, Doc. 43.) On October 8, 2024, Defendants filed petitions for permission to appeal the Court’s
remand order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1). (E.g., Permission for Leave to Appeal Dktd., In
Re: Playtika, Ltd., et al., No. 24-0503 (6th Cir. Oct. 8, 2024)). Defendants move for a stay of the
Court’s remand orders until the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit fully disposes of the petitions
to appeal. (E.g., Case No. 4:23-cv-55, Doc. 39 at 1.) Defendants represent that Plaintiffs do not
oppose a stay. (Id.)
“Ordinarily, remand orders ‘[are] not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.’” Dart Cherokee
Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 85 (2014) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §1447(d)). “There
is an exception, however, for cases invoking CAFA.” Id. at 85–86 (citing 28 U.S.C. §1453(c)(1)).
1
Given the strong similarities between the cases and the overlap of the parties’ arguments,
the Court addresses the cases together. For clarity, “Plaintiffs” and “Defendants” refer to parties
in more than one of the six related cases.
3
In such cases, the party appealing must file an appeal within “10 days after entry of the order.” 28
U.S.C. § 1453(c)(1). “Numerous district courts have found that limited jurisdiction exists to
address a motion to stay pending appeal of a CAFA remand order.” Anderson v. Wilco Life Ins.
Co., No. CV 119-008, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119108, at *3–4 (S.D. Ga. July 17, 2019) (collecting
cases). “Because CAFA expressly authorizes a party to file an appeal of a CAFA remand order,
the Court necessarily has limited jurisdiction to consider a motion to stay pending that appeal.”
Id. at *4.
In considering a stay pending appeal, courts balance four factors: “(1) the likelihood that
the party seeking the stay will prevail on the merits of the appeal; (2) the likelihood that the moving
party will be irreparably harmed absent a stay; (3) the prospect that others will be harmed if the
court grants the stay; and (4) the public interest in granting the stay.” Grutter v. Bollinger, 247
F.3d 631, 632 (6th Cir. 2001). “All four factors . . . are interconnected considerations that must be
balanced together.” Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action v. Granholm, 473 F.3d 237, 244 (6th Cir.
2006) (citing Mich. Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153
(6th Cir. 1991)). But the first two factors “are the most critical.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418,
434 (2009). “The probability of success that must be demonstrated is inversely proportional to the
amount of irreparable injury [the moving party] will suffer absent the stay.” Griepentrog, 945
F.2d at 153 (citing Ohio ex rel. Celebrezze v. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n, 812 F.2d 288, 290 (6th Cir.
1987)). But the movant must always “show, at a minimum, ‘serious questions going to the
merits.’” Id. at 154 (quoting In re DeLorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d 1223, 1229 (6th Cir. 1985)).
First, Defendants raises serious questions that may be appropriate for appellate review.
Defendants argue “this case presents serious questions of first impression about how to apply
CAFA to a statewide action brought under Tennessee’s eighteenth-century ‘gambling loss
4
recovery’ statute.” (E.g., Case No. 4:23-cv-55, Doc. 40 at 4.) Given the dearth of case law
interpreting Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-19-105 and the lack of authority regarding the
applicability of CAFA in this context, the first factor weighs toward a stay, but not heavily.
Second, Defendants are likely to suffer irreparable injury absent a stay by having to
simultaneously litigate this case in State Court and on appeal with the Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit. See e.g., Anderson, No. CV 119-008, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119108, at *3 (finding
the risk of harm from simultaneous litigation weighed toward granting a stay). The risk of
inconsistent outcomes also favors a stay. The two “most critical” factors weigh toward granting a
stay pending appeal. See Nken, 556 U.S. at 434.
Third, any prejudice to Plaintiffs will be limited. Plaintiffs’ interests may be served by
granting a stay in that they too will avoid incurring expenses simultaneously litigating in State
Court and on appeal with the Court of Appeals. See id. Additionally, any delay caused by a stay
will be relatively brief because “appellate review of jurisdiction issues under CAFA is expedited”
as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(2). Lafalier v. Cinnabar Serv. Co., No. 10-CV-0005-CVETLW, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42447, at *9 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 30, 2010) (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 1453(c)(2)). Moreover, given that Plaintiffs do not oppose a stay, the Court concludes they do
not see a substantial risk of prejudice in this case.
Finally, as to the fourth factor, public interest favors granting a stay because avoiding
duplicative litigation in state and federal courts conserves judicial resources. See Raskas v.
Johnson & Johnson, No. 4:12 CV 2174 JCH, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60531, at *8-9 (E.D. Mo.
Apr. 29, 2013) (finding the public interest in conserving judicial resources and promoting judicial
economy favored a stay).
5
All four factors weigh in favor of granting a stay. Accordingly, the Court will GRANT
Defendants’ motions (Case No. 4:23-cv-55, Doc. 39; Case No. 4:23-cv-58, Doc. 45; Case No.
4:23-cv-60, Doc. 48; Case No. 4:23-cv-61, Doc. 39; Case No. 4:23-cv-62, Doc. 45; Case No. 4:24cv-7, Doc. 45) and STAY the orders to remand the actions to the State Court (Case No. 4:23-cv55, Doc. 37; Case No. 4:23-cv-58, Doc. 42; Case No. 4:23-cv-60, Doc. 45; Case No. 4:23-cv-61,
Doc. 37; Case No. 4:23-cv-62, Doc. 43; Case No. 4:24-cv-7, Doc. 43) until the Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit fully disposes of the petitions to appeal.
APPROPRIATE ORDERS WILL ENTER.
/s/___________________________
CURTIS L. COLLIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?