oVini DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 01/23/2025 HAO ZHE WANG, Plaintiff, : 24-CV-2371 (JGLC) (RWL) - against - : ORDER NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, et al., : Defendants.

ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, United States Magistrate Judge. This order resolves the motions of Defendants National Association of Realtors (“NAR”), Halstead Manhattan, LLC (“Halstead”), Brown Harris Stevens Residential Sales, LLC (“BHS”), and Real Estate Board of New York (“REBNY”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) for a continuation of the temporary stay previously imposed in the case pending further developments in Burnett v. NAR, et al., No. 4:23-CV-332 (W.D. Mo.), a nationwide class action of which Plaintiff is a class member. The Moving Defendants request continuation of the stay pending resolution of Plaintiff's appeal of the final order and judgment approving the settlement in Burnett v NAR. (See Dkts. 88, 89.) The requests are GRANTED. A significant reason for the stay is the prospect of inefficient and burdensome piecemeal litigation that may occur depending on the outcome of the Eighth Circuit appeal. A continued stay is also consistent with the continuation of stays in other similar cases, including those previously ordered by this Court. See March v. REBNY, No. 23-

CV-9995 at Dkt. 281 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2025); Friedman v. REBNY, No. 24-CV-405, at Dkt. 155 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2025). The parties have not identified any concerns posed by a stay with respect to non-parties. The only prejudice that Plaintiff has identified is the delay in prosecution of the instant proceedings. While the Court does not want to see

litigation unnecessarily drawn out, and recognizes that Plaintiff has a valid interest in seeing his case progress in timely fashion, the prejudice to Plaintiff from the delay is outweighed considerably by the other interests for which the Court must account. See Poppel v. Rockefeller University Hospital, No. 19-CV-1403,

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2019) (listing factors courts consider when determining whether to grant a stay). Plaintiff’s arguments against continuation of the stay are not persuasive. (See Dkt. 90.) First, Plaintiff argues that his claim – as a direct purchaser of real property – is distinct from and not covered by the release or other provisions in the Burnett settlement. Plaintiff ignores, however, that the scope of released claims in the Burnett settlement

expressly “extends to transactions where Settlement Class members either sold or purchased a home on any MLS nationwide.” (Burnett Final Approval Order at 78; Burnett Final Judgment at 3.) The Burnett court enjoined all members of the settlement class who did not opt out “from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or pursuing as a plaintiff or class member any Released Claims against any of the Released Parties.” (Burnett Final Judgment at 2.) While Plaintiff disputes whether his claim in the instant action is a “Released Claim,” the Burnett court expressly retained “continuing and exclusive jurisdiction” over members of the Settlement Class, with respect to, inter alia, interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement “including with respect

to the membership and scope of the Settlement Class, Released Claims, and Released Parties.” (Burnett Final Judgment at 3.) It is most sensible to stay the instant action pending appellate review and consideration of the judgment incorporating those provisions. Plaintiff also argues that a stay is not warranted specifically with respect to Defendants Halstead and BRS because, at the time that he filed his objections to the Burnett settlement, Plaintiff allegedly was not aware that Halstead and BRS had opted in to the settlement as defendants. Moving Defendants have debunked that assertion. (See Dkt. 92 at 2-3 (“on September 30, 2024, again prior to Plaintiff's filing his objection in Burnett, the fact of the [BRS/Halstead] settlement was made public on the Burnett docket”).) Accordingly, this action is stayed pending determination in the Burnett appeal or such other order of the Court. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the letter motions at Dkts. 88 and 89. SO ORDERED. li UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated: January 23, 2025 New York, New York Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record.