1 HONORABLE BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN 2
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 PHILIP MARTIN; T.F. (NATALIE TANG); Case No. 2:24-cv-01264-BJR AND YATIN KHANNA, individually and 10 on behalf of all others similarly situated, STIPULATED MOTION TO WAIVE 11 Plaintiffs, SERVICE AND SET SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT 12 v.
13 BINANCE HOLDINGS, LTD d/b/a NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: BINANCE; BAM TRADING SERVICES, OCTOBER 4, 2024 14 INC. d/b/a BINANCE US, a Delaware corporation; and CHANGPENG ZHAO, 15 Defendants. 16
17 I. STIPULATED MOTION 18 Plaintiffs Philip Martin, T.F. (Natalie) Tang, and Yatin Khanna (collectively “Plaintiffs”), 19 and Defendants Binance Holdings, Ltd d/b/a Binance (“BHL”), BAM Trading Services Inc. d/b/a 20 Binance.US (“BAM”) and Changpeng Zhao (collectively “Defendants”), stipulate and agree as 21 follows: 22 1. On August 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) 23 2. On August 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Affidavit of Service attesting that BAM 24 was served on August 28, 2024. (ECF No. 20.) 25 3. On September 11, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Service of Summons and 26 Complaint by United States Marshal on Mr. Zhao (ECF No. 21), which the Court granted on 27 1 September 12, 2024 (ECF No. 24). 2 4. On September 18, 2024, BAM and Plaintiffs filed a Joint Stipulated Motion to 3 Extend BAM’s Time to Respond to the Complaint by 30 days to October 18, 2024, explaining that 4 BAM’s counsel was only recently retained and BHL and Mr. Zhao had not yet been served. (ECF 5 No. 26.) On September 19, 2024, the Court granted the Motion. (ECF No. 30.) 6 5. Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order for All Civil Cases (ECF No. 14 (the 7 “Standing Order”)), between September 17 and September 20, 2024, counsel for the Parties met 8 and conferred to determine whether a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) could be avoided. 9 (See Standing Order § F.) 10 6. On September 18, 2024, a United States Marshal served a copy of the summons 11 and the Complaint on Mr. Zhao. Plaintiffs were notified on September 24, 2024, that the United 12 States Marshal served the summons and Complaint on Mr. Zhao. 13 7. The Parties agree that bifurcating Defendants’ response to the Complaint in the two 14 stages as set out in paragraph 8, infra (the “Request to Bifurcate”), such that the parties will first 15 brief Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and will then brief Defendants motions to dismiss 16 on jurisdictional and substantive grounds, if necessary, will serve the purpose of the Standing 17 Order, potentially avoid unnecessary briefing, serve efficiency and judicial economy, and conserve 18 the Parties’ and the Court’s resources. 19 8. The Parties further agree that the Request to Bifurcate is permitted and warranted 20 pursuant to Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) 21 (“Sinochem”). Under Sinochem, since there is “no mandatory ‘sequencing of jurisdictional 22 issues,’” (Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 431) the Court has “leeway to ‘choose among threshold grounds 23 for denying audience to a case on the merits,’” and may resolve certain “‘threshold question[s]’ … 24 before addressing jurisdiction.” (Id. at 431 (citations omitted).) This is particularly true where, as 25 here, considerations of “convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so warrant.” (Id. at 436, 432.) 26 9. Accordingly, the Parties agree that good cause exists for the Court to enter an order 27 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) approving the Stipulation as follows: 1 A. BHL hereby waives service of a summons and waives any objections to the absence 2 of a summons or of service. 3 B. Within 60 days after the Court grants the Stipulation, Defendants will file a single 4 combined Motion to Compel Arbitration, only. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition 5 within 30 days of the Motion and Defendants shall have 14 days to file a reply. By 6 filing the Motion to Compel, Defendants do not consent to the Court’s personal 7 jurisdiction or waive any arguments or defenses, except for the sufficiency and 8 validity of service of process, including, but not limited to, those relating to 9 personal jurisdiction. 10 C. By agreeing to the terms of this stipulation, Plaintiffs do not acknowledge any merit 11 to Defendants’ anticipated Motion to Compel and are agreeing solely to promote 12 efficiencies and in the spirit of compromise. 13 D. If the Court denies Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, the parties shall 14 meet and confer pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order to determine whether a 15 motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) can be avoided. The parties shall file a 16 joint report with the Court no later than 14 days after any Order denying 17 Defendants’ Motion to Compel to notify the Court if Defendants seek to file a 18 Motion to Dismiss and, if so, the proposed briefing schedule of the parties. 19 10. The Parties submit that good cause exists to grant the Request to Bifurcate because 20 the case is in its early stages and the proposed responsive schedule will not cause undue delay. 21 Indeed, BAM’s counsel was only recently engaged in this litigation and its responsive pleading 22 deadline is on October 18, 2024—that is, in more than three weeks. Finally, no discovery cut-off 23 or trial dates have been set, BAM has only requested one previous extension to respond to the 24 Complaint, and Mr. Zhao and BHL have not requested any extensions of time. 25 11. The Parties further submit that good cause exists to grant the Request to Bifurcate 26 because the proposed schedule potentially avoids unnecessary litigation and expense, promotes 27 judicial economy, and facilitates the orderly presentation and adjudication of the issues presented 1 in this case. Because Defendants intend to make similar challenges to the Complaint, it serves 2 judicial efficiency to align the response deadline for all Defendants to avoid repetitive briefing. 3 12. The Parties agree that by filing this Stipulation, Defendants do not intend to make, 4 and have not made, a general appearance, and have not waived their right to move to compel 5 arbitration and/or argue that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants. For avoidance 6 of doubt, Defendants met and conferred with Plaintiffs and submit this Stipulation subject to, and 7 without waiver of, Defendants’ arbitration and jurisdictional arguments and defenses. 8 IT IS SO STIPULATED this 4th day of October 2024. 9 KELLER ROHRBACK LLP CORR CRONIN LLP
10 By: /s/ Lynn Lincoln Sarko By: /s/ Blake Marks-Dias 11 Derek W. Loeser, WSBA No. 24274 Blake Marks-Dias, WSBA No. 28169 Lynn Lincoln Sarko, WSBA No. 16569 Todd T. Williams, WSBA No. 45032 12 Chris N. Ryder, WSBA No. 58732 1015 Second Avenue, Floor 10 13 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 (206) 625-8600 14 (206) 623-1900 bmarksdias@corrcronin.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com twilliams@corrcronin.com 15 lsarko@kellerrohrback.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 16 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN Daniel Stabile (Pro Hac Vice) & DOWD LLP Gabriela Plasencia (Pro Hac Vice) 17 Evan J. Kaufman, Admitted Pro Hac Vice 200 S. Biscayne Blvd. 18 Samuel H. Rudman, Admitted Suite 2400 Pro Hac Vice Miami, FL 33131 19 Jonathan A. Ohlmann, Admitted (305) 910-0500 Pro Hac Vice dstabile@winston.com 20 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
1 HONORABLE BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN 2
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 PHILIP MARTIN; T.F. (NATALIE TANG); Case No. 2:24-cv-01264-BJR AND YATIN KHANNA, individually and 10 on behalf of all others similarly situated, STIPULATED MOTION TO WAIVE 11 Plaintiffs, SERVICE AND SET SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT 12 v.
13 BINANCE HOLDINGS, LTD d/b/a NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: BINANCE; BAM TRADING SERVICES, OCTOBER 4, 2024 14 INC. d/b/a BINANCE US, a Delaware corporation; and CHANGPENG ZHAO, 15 Defendants. 16
17 I. STIPULATED MOTION 18 Plaintiffs Philip Martin, T.F. (Natalie) Tang, and Yatin Khanna (collectively “Plaintiffs”), 19 and Defendants Binance Holdings, Ltd d/b/a Binance (“BHL”), BAM Trading Services Inc. d/b/a 20 Binance.US (“BAM”) and Changpeng Zhao (collectively “Defendants”), stipulate and agree as 21 follows: 22 1. On August 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) 23 2. On August 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Affidavit of Service attesting that BAM 24 was served on August 28, 2024. (ECF No. 20.) 25 3. On September 11, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Service of Summons and 26 Complaint by United States Marshal on Mr. Zhao (ECF No. 21), which the Court granted on 27 1 September 12, 2024 (ECF No. 24). 2 4. On September 18, 2024, BAM and Plaintiffs filed a Joint Stipulated Motion to 3 Extend BAM’s Time to Respond to the Complaint by 30 days to October 18, 2024, explaining that 4 BAM’s counsel was only recently retained and BHL and Mr. Zhao had not yet been served. (ECF 5 No. 26.) On September 19, 2024, the Court granted the Motion. (ECF No. 30.) 6 5. Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order for All Civil Cases (ECF No. 14 (the 7 “Standing Order”)), between September 17 and September 20, 2024, counsel for the Parties met 8 and conferred to determine whether a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) could be avoided. 9 (See Standing Order § F.) 10 6. On September 18, 2024, a United States Marshal served a copy of the summons 11 and the Complaint on Mr. Zhao. Plaintiffs were notified on September 24, 2024, that the United 12 States Marshal served the summons and Complaint on Mr. Zhao. 13 7. The Parties agree that bifurcating Defendants’ response to the Complaint in the two 14 stages as set out in paragraph 8, infra (the “Request to Bifurcate”), such that the parties will first 15 brief Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and will then brief Defendants motions to dismiss 16 on jurisdictional and substantive grounds, if necessary, will serve the purpose of the Standing 17 Order, potentially avoid unnecessary briefing, serve efficiency and judicial economy, and conserve 18 the Parties’ and the Court’s resources. 19 8. The Parties further agree that the Request to Bifurcate is permitted and warranted 20 pursuant to Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) 21 (“Sinochem”). Under Sinochem, since there is “no mandatory ‘sequencing of jurisdictional 22 issues,’” (Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 431) the Court has “leeway to ‘choose among threshold grounds 23 for denying audience to a case on the merits,’” and may resolve certain “‘threshold question[s]’ … 24 before addressing jurisdiction.” (Id. at 431 (citations omitted).) This is particularly true where, as 25 here, considerations of “convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so warrant.” (Id. at 436, 432.) 26 9. Accordingly, the Parties agree that good cause exists for the Court to enter an order 27 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) approving the Stipulation as follows: 1 A. BHL hereby waives service of a summons and waives any objections to the absence 2 of a summons or of service. 3 B. Within 60 days after the Court grants the Stipulation, Defendants will file a single 4 combined Motion to Compel Arbitration, only. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition 5 within 30 days of the Motion and Defendants shall have 14 days to file a reply. By 6 filing the Motion to Compel, Defendants do not consent to the Court’s personal 7 jurisdiction or waive any arguments or defenses, except for the sufficiency and 8 validity of service of process, including, but not limited to, those relating to 9 personal jurisdiction. 10 C. By agreeing to the terms of this stipulation, Plaintiffs do not acknowledge any merit 11 to Defendants’ anticipated Motion to Compel and are agreeing solely to promote 12 efficiencies and in the spirit of compromise. 13 D. If the Court denies Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, the parties shall 14 meet and confer pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order to determine whether a 15 motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) can be avoided. The parties shall file a 16 joint report with the Court no later than 14 days after any Order denying 17 Defendants’ Motion to Compel to notify the Court if Defendants seek to file a 18 Motion to Dismiss and, if so, the proposed briefing schedule of the parties. 19 10. The Parties submit that good cause exists to grant the Request to Bifurcate because 20 the case is in its early stages and the proposed responsive schedule will not cause undue delay. 21 Indeed, BAM’s counsel was only recently engaged in this litigation and its responsive pleading 22 deadline is on October 18, 2024—that is, in more than three weeks. Finally, no discovery cut-off 23 or trial dates have been set, BAM has only requested one previous extension to respond to the 24 Complaint, and Mr. Zhao and BHL have not requested any extensions of time. 25 11. The Parties further submit that good cause exists to grant the Request to Bifurcate 26 because the proposed schedule potentially avoids unnecessary litigation and expense, promotes 27 judicial economy, and facilitates the orderly presentation and adjudication of the issues presented 1 in this case. Because Defendants intend to make similar challenges to the Complaint, it serves 2 judicial efficiency to align the response deadline for all Defendants to avoid repetitive briefing. 3 12. The Parties agree that by filing this Stipulation, Defendants do not intend to make, 4 and have not made, a general appearance, and have not waived their right to move to compel 5 arbitration and/or argue that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants. For avoidance 6 of doubt, Defendants met and conferred with Plaintiffs and submit this Stipulation subject to, and 7 without waiver of, Defendants’ arbitration and jurisdictional arguments and defenses. 8 IT IS SO STIPULATED this 4th day of October 2024. 9 KELLER ROHRBACK LLP CORR CRONIN LLP
10 By: /s/ Lynn Lincoln Sarko By: /s/ Blake Marks-Dias 11 Derek W. Loeser, WSBA No. 24274 Blake Marks-Dias, WSBA No. 28169 Lynn Lincoln Sarko, WSBA No. 16569 Todd T. Williams, WSBA No. 45032 12 Chris N. Ryder, WSBA No. 58732 1015 Second Avenue, Floor 10 13 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 (206) 625-8600 14 (206) 623-1900 bmarksdias@corrcronin.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com twilliams@corrcronin.com 15 lsarko@kellerrohrback.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 16 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN Daniel Stabile (Pro Hac Vice) & DOWD LLP Gabriela Plasencia (Pro Hac Vice) 17 Evan J. Kaufman, Admitted Pro Hac Vice 200 S. Biscayne Blvd. 18 Samuel H. Rudman, Admitted Suite 2400 Pro Hac Vice Miami, FL 33131 19 Jonathan A. Ohlmann, Admitted (305) 910-0500 Pro Hac Vice dstabile@winston.com 20 58 Service Road, Suite 200 gplasencia@winston.com Melville, NY 11747
21 (631) 367-7100 22 ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com Thania Charmani (Pro Hac Vice) srudman@rgrdlaw.com 200 Park Avenue 23 johlmann@rgrdlaw.com New York, NY 10166-4196 (212) 294-6700 24 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN acharmani@winston.com & DOWD LLP 25 Eric I. Niehaus, Admitted Pro Hac Vice 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 Attorneys for Defendant BAM Trading Services 26 San Diego, CA 92101 Inc. 27 (619) 231-1058 ericn@rgrdlaw.com 1 SILVER MILLER LANE POWELL PC David C. Silver, Admitted Pro Hac Vice 2 Jason S. Miller, Admitted Pro Hac Vice By: /s/ Sean D. Jackson 3 4450 NW 126th Avenue, Suite 101 Sean Jackson WSBA No. 33615 Coral Springs, FL 33065 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200 4 (954) 516-6000 Seattle, WA 98101 dsilver@silvermillerlaw.com 5 jmiller@silvermillerlaw.com (206) 223-7000 JacksonS@LanePowell.com
6 HERMAN JONES LLP WITHERS BERGMAN LLP 7 John C. Herman, Admitted Pro Hac Vice Christoper N. LaVigne (pro hac vice 3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650 forthcoming) 8 Atlanta, GA 30326 430 Park Avenue, 10th Floor (404)504-6555 New York, New York 1002 9 jherman@hermanjones.com (212) 848-9882 christopher.lavigne@withersworldwide.com 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Philip Martin, et. al. 11 Attorneys for Defendant Binance Holdings Ltd. d/b/a Binance 12 13 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 14
15 By: /s/ Alicia Cobb Alicia Cobb 16 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 17 (206) 905-7000 18 aliciacobb@quinemanuel.com
19 Avi Perry (pro hac vice forthcoming) 1300 I Street, NW, Suite 900 20 Washington, D.C. 20005 21 (202) 538-8000 aviperry@quinnemanuel.com 22 Peter H. Fountain (pro hac vice 23 forthcoming) Michael A. Linneman (pro hac vice 24 forthcoming) 25 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10010 26 (212) 849-7000 peterfountain@quinnemanuel.com 27 michaellinneman@quinnemanuel.com 1 Brenna Ledvora (pro hac vice forthcoming) 2 191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700 3 Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 705-7400 4 brennaledvora@quinnemanuel.com
5 Attorneys for Defendant Changpeng Zhao 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 II. ORDER 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 DATED this 7th day of October 2024. 4 A 5 6 BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 Presented by: 9 LANE POWELL PC 10 11 s/ Sean D. Jackson 12 Sean D. Jackson, WSBA No. 33615 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200 13 P.O. Box 91302 Seattle, Washington 98111-9402 14 Phone: 206.223.7000 jacksons@lanepowell.com 15
16 Christopher N. LaVigne, (pro hac vice forthcoming) christopher.lavigne@withersworldwide.com 17 430 Park Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10022-3505 18 Phone 212.848.9800 19 Fax 212.848.9888
20 Attorneys for Defendant Binance Holdings Ltd. d/b/a Binance 21 22 23 24 25 26 27