HONORABLE BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON PHILIP MARTIN; T.F. (NATALIE TANG); Case No. 2:24-cv-01264-BJR AND YATIN KHANNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, STIPULATED MOTION TO WAIVE Plaintiffs, SERVICE AND SET SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT v.
BINANCE HOLDINGS, LTD d/b/a NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: BINANCE; BAM TRADING SERVICES, OCTOBER 4, 2024 INC. d/b/a BINANCE US, a Delaware corporation; and CHANGPENG ZHAO, Defendants.
I. STIPULATED MOTION Plaintiffs Philip Martin, T.F. (Natalie) Tang, and Yatin Khanna (collectively “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants Binance Holdings, Ltd d/b/a Binance (“BHL”), BAM Trading Services Inc. d/b/a Binance.US (“BAM”) and Changpeng Zhao (collectively “Defendants”), stipulate and agree as follows: 1. On August 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) 2. On August 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Affidavit of Service attesting that BAM was served on August 28, 2024. (ECF No. 20.) 3. On September 11, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Service of Summons and Complaint by United States Marshal on Mr. Zhao (ECF No. 21), which the Court granted on September 12, 2024 (ECF No. 24). 4. On September 18, 2024, BAM and Plaintiffs filed a Joint Stipulated Motion to Extend BAM’s Time to Respond to the Complaint by 30 days to October 18, 2024, explaining that BAM’s counsel was only recently retained and BHL and Mr. Zhao had not yet been served. (ECF No. 26.) On September 19, 2024, the Court granted the Motion. (ECF No. 30.) 5. Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order for All Civil Cases (ECF No. 14 (the “Standing Order”)), between September 17 and September 20, 2024, counsel for the Parties met and conferred to determine whether a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) could be avoided. (See Standing Order § F.) 6. On September 18, 2024, a United States Marshal served a copy of the summons and the Complaint on Mr. Zhao. Plaintiffs were notified on September 24, 2024, that the United States Marshal served the summons and Complaint on Mr. Zhao. 7. The Parties agree that bifurcating Defendants’ response to the Complaint in the two stages as set out in paragraph 8, infra (the “Request to Bifurcate”), such that the parties will first brief Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and will then brief Defendants motions to dismiss on jurisdictional and substantive grounds, if necessary, will serve the purpose of the Standing Order, potentially avoid unnecessary briefing, serve efficiency and judicial economy, and conserve the Parties’ and the Court’s resources. 8. The Parties further agree that the Request to Bifurcate is permitted and warranted pursuant to Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (“Sinochem”). Under Sinochem, since there is “no mandatory ‘sequencing of jurisdictional issues,’” (Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 431) the Court has “leeway to ‘choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits,’” and may resolve certain “‘threshold question[s]’ … before addressing jurisdiction.” (Id. at 431 (citations omitted).) This is particularly true where, as here, considerations of “convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so warrant.” (Id. at 436, 432.) 9. Accordingly, the Parties agree that good cause exists for the Court to enter an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) approving the Stipulation as follows: A. BHL hereby waives service of a summons and waives any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. B. Within 60 days after the Court grants the Stipulation, Defendants will file a single combined Motion to Compel Arbitration, only. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition within 30 days of the Motion and Defendants shall have 14 days to file a reply. By filing the Motion to Compel, Defendants do not consent to the Court’s personal jurisdiction or waive any arguments or defenses, except for the sufficiency and validity of service of process, including, but not limited to, those relating to personal jurisdiction. C. By agreeing to the terms of this stipulation, Plaintiffs do not acknowledge any merit to Defendants’ anticipated Motion to Compel and are agreeing solely to promote efficiencies and in the spirit of compromise. D. If the Court denies Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, the parties shall meet and confer pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order to determine whether a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) can be avoided. The parties shall file a joint report with the Court no later than 14 days after any Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Compel to notify the Court if Defendants seek to file a Motion to Dismiss and, if so, the proposed briefing schedule of the parties. 10. The Parties submit that good cause exists to grant the Request to Bifurcate because the case is in its early stages and the proposed responsive schedule will not cause undue delay. Indeed, BAM’s counsel was only recently engaged in this litigation and its responsive pleading deadline is on October 18, 2024—that is, in more than three weeks. Finally, no discovery cut-off or trial dates have been set, BAM has only requested one previous extension to respond to the Complaint, and Mr. Zhao and BHL have not requested any extensions of time. 11. The Parties further submit that good cause exists to grant the Request to Bifurcate because the proposed schedule potentially avoids unnecessary litigation and expense, promotes judicial economy, and facilitates the orderly presentation and adjudication of the issues presented in this case. Because Defendants intend to make similar challenges to the Complaint, it serves judicial efficiency to align the response deadline for all Defendants to avoid repetitive briefing. 12. The Parties agree that by filing this Stipulation, Defendants do not intend to make, and have not made, a general appearance, and have not waived their right to move to compel arbitration and/or argue that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants. For avoidance of doubt, Defendants met and conferred with Plaintiffs and submit this Stipulation subject to, and without waiver of, Defendants’ arbitration and jurisdictional arguments and defenses. IT IS SO STIPULATED this 4th day of October 2024.
By: /s/ Lynn Lincoln Sarko By: /s/ Blake Marks-Dias Derek W. Loeser, WSBA No. 24274 Blake Marks-Dias, WSBA No. 28169 Lynn Lincoln Sarko, WSBA No. 16569 Todd T. Williams, WSBA No. 45032 Chris N. Ryder, WSBA No. 58732 1015 Second Avenue, Floor 10 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 (206) 625-8600 (206) 623-1900 bmarksdias@corrcronin.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com twilliams@corrcronin.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN Daniel Stabile (Pro Hac Vice) & DOWD LLP Gabriela Plasencia (Pro Hac Vice) Evan J. Kaufman, Admitted Pro Hac Vice 200 S. Biscayne Blvd. Samuel H. Rudman, Admitted Suite 2400 Pro Hac Vice Miami, FL 33131 Jonathan A. Ohlmann, Admitted (305) 910-0500 Pro Hac Vice dstabile@winston.com 58 Service Road, Suite 200 gplasencia@winston.com Melville, NY 11747
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
HONORABLE BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON PHILIP MARTIN; T.F. (NATALIE TANG); Case No. 2:24-cv-01264-BJR AND YATIN KHANNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, STIPULATED MOTION TO WAIVE Plaintiffs, SERVICE AND SET SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT v.
BINANCE HOLDINGS, LTD d/b/a NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: BINANCE; BAM TRADING SERVICES, OCTOBER 4, 2024 INC. d/b/a BINANCE US, a Delaware corporation; and CHANGPENG ZHAO, Defendants.
I. STIPULATED MOTION Plaintiffs Philip Martin, T.F. (Natalie) Tang, and Yatin Khanna (collectively “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants Binance Holdings, Ltd d/b/a Binance (“BHL”), BAM Trading Services Inc. d/b/a Binance.US (“BAM”) and Changpeng Zhao (collectively “Defendants”), stipulate and agree as follows: 1. On August 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) 2. On August 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Affidavit of Service attesting that BAM was served on August 28, 2024. (ECF No. 20.) 3. On September 11, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Service of Summons and Complaint by United States Marshal on Mr. Zhao (ECF No. 21), which the Court granted on September 12, 2024 (ECF No. 24). 4. On September 18, 2024, BAM and Plaintiffs filed a Joint Stipulated Motion to Extend BAM’s Time to Respond to the Complaint by 30 days to October 18, 2024, explaining that BAM’s counsel was only recently retained and BHL and Mr. Zhao had not yet been served. (ECF No. 26.) On September 19, 2024, the Court granted the Motion. (ECF No. 30.) 5. Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order for All Civil Cases (ECF No. 14 (the “Standing Order”)), between September 17 and September 20, 2024, counsel for the Parties met and conferred to determine whether a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) could be avoided. (See Standing Order § F.) 6. On September 18, 2024, a United States Marshal served a copy of the summons and the Complaint on Mr. Zhao. Plaintiffs were notified on September 24, 2024, that the United States Marshal served the summons and Complaint on Mr. Zhao. 7. The Parties agree that bifurcating Defendants’ response to the Complaint in the two stages as set out in paragraph 8, infra (the “Request to Bifurcate”), such that the parties will first brief Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and will then brief Defendants motions to dismiss on jurisdictional and substantive grounds, if necessary, will serve the purpose of the Standing Order, potentially avoid unnecessary briefing, serve efficiency and judicial economy, and conserve the Parties’ and the Court’s resources. 8. The Parties further agree that the Request to Bifurcate is permitted and warranted pursuant to Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (“Sinochem”). Under Sinochem, since there is “no mandatory ‘sequencing of jurisdictional issues,’” (Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 431) the Court has “leeway to ‘choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits,’” and may resolve certain “‘threshold question[s]’ … before addressing jurisdiction.” (Id. at 431 (citations omitted).) This is particularly true where, as here, considerations of “convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so warrant.” (Id. at 436, 432.) 9. Accordingly, the Parties agree that good cause exists for the Court to enter an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) approving the Stipulation as follows: A. BHL hereby waives service of a summons and waives any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. B. Within 60 days after the Court grants the Stipulation, Defendants will file a single combined Motion to Compel Arbitration, only. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition within 30 days of the Motion and Defendants shall have 14 days to file a reply. By filing the Motion to Compel, Defendants do not consent to the Court’s personal jurisdiction or waive any arguments or defenses, except for the sufficiency and validity of service of process, including, but not limited to, those relating to personal jurisdiction. C. By agreeing to the terms of this stipulation, Plaintiffs do not acknowledge any merit to Defendants’ anticipated Motion to Compel and are agreeing solely to promote efficiencies and in the spirit of compromise. D. If the Court denies Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, the parties shall meet and confer pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order to determine whether a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) can be avoided. The parties shall file a joint report with the Court no later than 14 days after any Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Compel to notify the Court if Defendants seek to file a Motion to Dismiss and, if so, the proposed briefing schedule of the parties. 10. The Parties submit that good cause exists to grant the Request to Bifurcate because the case is in its early stages and the proposed responsive schedule will not cause undue delay. Indeed, BAM’s counsel was only recently engaged in this litigation and its responsive pleading deadline is on October 18, 2024—that is, in more than three weeks. Finally, no discovery cut-off or trial dates have been set, BAM has only requested one previous extension to respond to the Complaint, and Mr. Zhao and BHL have not requested any extensions of time. 11. The Parties further submit that good cause exists to grant the Request to Bifurcate because the proposed schedule potentially avoids unnecessary litigation and expense, promotes judicial economy, and facilitates the orderly presentation and adjudication of the issues presented in this case. Because Defendants intend to make similar challenges to the Complaint, it serves judicial efficiency to align the response deadline for all Defendants to avoid repetitive briefing. 12. The Parties agree that by filing this Stipulation, Defendants do not intend to make, and have not made, a general appearance, and have not waived their right to move to compel arbitration and/or argue that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants. For avoidance of doubt, Defendants met and conferred with Plaintiffs and submit this Stipulation subject to, and without waiver of, Defendants’ arbitration and jurisdictional arguments and defenses. IT IS SO STIPULATED this 4th day of October 2024.
By: /s/ Lynn Lincoln Sarko By: /s/ Blake Marks-Dias Derek W. Loeser, WSBA No. 24274 Blake Marks-Dias, WSBA No. 28169 Lynn Lincoln Sarko, WSBA No. 16569 Todd T. Williams, WSBA No. 45032 Chris N. Ryder, WSBA No. 58732 1015 Second Avenue, Floor 10 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 (206) 625-8600 (206) 623-1900 bmarksdias@corrcronin.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com twilliams@corrcronin.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN Daniel Stabile (Pro Hac Vice) & DOWD LLP Gabriela Plasencia (Pro Hac Vice) Evan J. Kaufman, Admitted Pro Hac Vice 200 S. Biscayne Blvd. Samuel H. Rudman, Admitted Suite 2400 Pro Hac Vice Miami, FL 33131 Jonathan A. Ohlmann, Admitted (305) 910-0500 Pro Hac Vice dstabile@winston.com 58 Service Road, Suite 200 gplasencia@winston.com Melville, NY 11747
(631) 367-7100 ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com Thania Charmani (Pro Hac Vice) srudman@rgrdlaw.com 200 Park Avenue johlmann@rgrdlaw.com New York, NY 10166-4196 (212) 294-6700 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN acharmani@winston.com & DOWD LLP Eric I. Niehaus, Admitted Pro Hac Vice 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 Attorneys for Defendant BAM Trading Services San Diego, CA 92101 Inc. (619) 231-1058 ericn@rgrdlaw.com David C. Silver, Admitted Pro Hac Vice Jason S. Miller, Admitted Pro Hac Vice By: /s/ Sean D. Jackson 4450 NW 126th Avenue, Suite 101 Sean Jackson WSBA No. 33615 Coral Springs, FL 33065 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200 (954) 516-6000 Seattle, WA 98101 dsilver@silvermillerlaw.com jmiller@silvermillerlaw.com (206) 223-7000 JacksonS@LanePowell.com
HERMAN JONES LLP WITHERS BERGMAN LLP John C. Herman, Admitted Pro Hac Vice Christoper N. LaVigne (pro hac vice 3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650 forthcoming) Atlanta, GA 30326 430 Park Avenue, 10th Floor (404)504-6555 New York, New York 1002 jherman@hermanjones.com (212) 848-9882 christopher.lavigne@withersworldwide.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Philip Martin, et. al. Attorneys for Defendant Binance Holdings Ltd. d/b/a Binance QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
By: /s/ Alicia Cobb Alicia Cobb 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 905-7000 aliciacobb@quinemanuel.com
Avi Perry (pro hac vice forthcoming) 1300 I Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 538-8000 aviperry@quinnemanuel.com Peter H. Fountain (pro hac vice forthcoming) Michael A. Linneman (pro hac vice forthcoming) 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10010 (212) 849-7000 peterfountain@quinnemanuel.com michaellinneman@quinnemanuel.com Brenna Ledvora (pro hac vice forthcoming) 191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 705-7400 brennaledvora@quinnemanuel.com
Attorneys for Defendant Changpeng Zhao
DATED this 7th day of October 2024. A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Presented by: LANE POWELL PC s/ Sean D. Jackson Sean D. Jackson, WSBA No. 33615 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 91302 Seattle, Washington 98111-9402 Phone: 206.223.7000 jacksons@lanepowell.com
Christopher N. LaVigne, (pro hac vice forthcoming) christopher.lavigne@withersworldwide.com 430 Park Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10022-3505 Phone 212.848.9800 Fax 212.848.9888
Attorneys for Defendant Binance Holdings Ltd. d/b/a Binance