1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 DEWAYNE CARTER, et al., 10 Case No. 23-cv-06325-RS Plaintiffs, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 12 LIMITED INTERVENTION AND NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER, 13 ASSOCIATION, et al., DISMISS, OR STAY 14 Defendants.

15 16 Alex Fontenot and Mya Hollingshed are named plaintiffs in a putative class action 17 presently pending in the District of Colorado, which raises claims substantially similar to those 18 brought in this action, against the same defendants. See Fontenot, et al. v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic 19 Ass’n, et al., No. 1:23-cv-03076-CNS-STV (D. Col.). The Fontenot plaintiffs seek leave to 20 intervene herein for the limited purpose of bringing a motion to transfer, dismiss, or stay this 21 action pursuant to the “first-to-file rule.” Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the matter is suitable 22 for disposition without oral argument, and the hearing set for May 23, 2024, is vacated. 23 Although the Fontenot plaintiffs may not have direct interests in this litigation of the type 24 typically asserted by proposed intervenors, it is appropriate to allow them to intervene for the 25 limited purpose of reaching the merits of their motion to transfer, dismiss, or stay. That motion, 26 however, will be denied. Even though Fontenot was filed earlier than this action, the short 27 duration of time between the two filings (17 days) greatly diminishes the import of the first-to-file 1 Payless Shoesource, Inc., No. C-11-1892 EMC,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2 ||} 2012) and cases cited therein (“Courts have declined to apply the rule where the time between the 3 actions is relatively short because the two actions will not necessarily have progressed to different 4 || stages.”). 5 Moreover, as the Fontenot complaint itself expressly alleges, the broader issue of 6 || compensation and benefits for NCAA student-athletes, and the application of antitrust law to that 7 issue, has been the subject of ongoing litigation originating in this district for several years. 8 Indeed, this Court will be referring all discovery matters in this particular action to the same 9 Magistrate Judge who has, from the outset, handled discovery issues in that long standing and 10 || ongoing Northern District litigation. While there may be a closer identity between the claims 11 raised in Fontenot and those pleaded in this case, than between Fontenot and the earlier cases, it a 12 would not be reasonable to conclude this case should be transferred, dismissed, or stayed in favor

13 of Fontenot under these particular circumstances.' The motion is therefore denied.

15 || ITISSO ORDERED. 16

|| Dated: April 29, 2024 . Z 18 RICHARD SEEBORG 19 Chief United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24]. ' It very well may be the case that judicial efficiency and economy would be best served if 25 Fontenot and this case were litigated together, a factor the District of Colorado may certainl y y 6 consider when it evaluates the motion to transfer defendants recently filed in Fontenot. That consideration, however, is not sufficient to support the strained application of the first-to-file rule 97 || that the Fontenot plaintiffs are requesting. 28 CASE No. 23-cv-06325-RS