Hayes v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P.
| James Hayes |
| Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. |
| 1:2022cv05822 |
| October 21, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Steven C Seeger |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 13, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 25 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal (Dckt. No. #24 ), which is self-effectuating under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). All pending motions are denied as moot. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The case is closed. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 24 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by James Hayes VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (Stephan, Ryan) |
| Filing 23 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff James Hayes by Brandon Michael Wise (Wise, Brandon) |
| Filing 22 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court sets the following briefing schedule on defendant's motion to dismiss (Dckt. No. #21 ). Plaintiff's response is due by February 17, 2023. Defendant's reply is due by March 3, 2023. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 21 MOTION by Defendant Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. to dismiss in favor of arbitration, for lack of standing, and for failure to state a claim (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Joshua Frost, #2 Exhibit A - TOU 2016, #3 Exhibit B - TOU 2019, #4 Exhibit C - TOU 2020)(Littmann, Alan) |
| Filing 20 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the joint initial status report (Dckt. No. #18 ). Defendant MLBAM intends to file a motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, for lack of standing, and for failure to state a claim. Discovery is stayed pending a ruling on that motion. If the case stays here, the Court will set a case calendar at a later time by separate order. Mailed notice (jjr, ) |
| Filing 19 Plaintiff's Statement in Response to January 9, 2023 Order of Court (Dkt. No. 17) STATEMENT by James Hayes (Mitchell, Catherine) |
| Filing 18 STATUS Report Joint Initial Status Report by James Hayes (Mitchell, Catherine) |
| Filing 17 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendant's motion for extra pages (Dckt. No. #14 ) is hereby granted. Defendant MLB Advanced Media seeks nine extra pages for its motion to dismiss. Plaintiff does not oppose five extra pages, meaning a brief up to 20 pages, but does oppose a request for nine extra pages. In Plaintiff's view, if Defendant wants to file more than 20 pages, then "it's probably best to file two separate motions." As a general matter, lawyers tend to want more pages, and judges tend to want fewer pages. Lawyers typically overestimate the rhetorical effectiveness of saying more. Shorter is typically better. If you want to do your client a favor, tell opposing counsel that you have no objection to them filing a 100-page brief. Lawyers want to say more, and on the flipside, they tend to get too worked up and bent out of shape when opposing counsel wants extra pages. That said, the only thing worse than getting too many pages is getting too many pages about whether the Court should authorize more pages. This Court had to spend its limited resources reading an opposed motion about four extra pages. The dispute is not worth the candle (or the paper). To drive the point home, the Court orders the following. By January 13, 2023, Plaintiff's counsel must file a statement addressing whether it is a good use of time by the federal judiciary to adjudicate a dispute about four extra pages. The page limit is four pages. Mailed notice (jjr, ) |
| Filing 16 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendant's second unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to complaint (Dckt. No. #15 ) is granted. Defendant shall respond to plaintiff's complaint by January 23, 2023. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 15 MOTION by Defendant Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint #1 UNOPPOSED (Littmann, Alan) |
| Filing 14 MOTION by Defendant Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. for leave to file excess pages (Littmann, Alan) |
| Filing 13 ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to #Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates)#, any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this #LINK# will provide additional information. Signed by the Executive Committee on 12/29/2022: Mailed notice. (tg, ) |
| Filing 12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to complaint (Dckt. No. #9 ) is granted. Defendant shall respond to plaintiff's complaint by January 9, 2023. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 11 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. by Logan Ann Steiner (Steiner, Logan) |
| Filing 10 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. (Littmann, Alan) |
| Filing 9 MOTION by Defendant Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint #1 UNOPPOSED (Littmann, Alan) |
| Filing 8 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. by Samuel Ernest Schoenburg (Schoenburg, Samuel) |
| Filing 7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. by Andrew J Rima (Rima, Andrew) |
| Filing 6 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. by Alan Littmann (Littmann, Alan) |
| Filing 5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff James Hayes by Catherine T Mitchell (Mitchell, Catherine) |
| Filing 4 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by January 9, 2023. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule 16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. (smb, ) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff James Hayes by James B. Zouras (Zouras, James) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Stephan, Ryan) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT filed by James Hayes; Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-19971893.(Stephan, Ryan) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani. Case assignment: Random assignment. (smb, ) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (smb, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
