`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`Case No. 20 C 512
`
`
`Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 20 C 846
`
`
`Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`DAVID MUTNICK, for himself and others
`similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`CLEARVIEW AI, INC.; HOAN TON-THAT;
`RICHARD SCHWARTZ; and CDW
`GOVERNMENT LLC,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`ANTHONY HALL, on behalf of himself and
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`
`
`CDW GOVERNMENT LLC, and
`CLEARVIEW AI, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS CLEARVIEW AI, INC., HOAN TON-THAT, AND RICHARD
`SCHWARTZ’S MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING DECISION ON MOTION
`TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER VENUE
`
`NOW COME Defendants Clearview AI, Inc. (“Clearview”), Hoan Ton-That, and Richard
`
`Schwartz (collective, the “Clearview Defendants”), by and through their counsel, and move to stay
`
`the above-captioned matters pending the Court’s decision on the Clearview Defendants’
`
`concurrently-filed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, to
`
`Transfer Venue. In support of this Motion to Stay, the Clearview Defendants state as follows:
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 47 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:380
`
`1.
`
`On April 8, 2020, almost three months into the Mutnick, litigation, Mutnick filed a
`
`motion for preliminary injunction. See No. 20-cv-512, ECF No. 31.
`
`2.
`
`Before resolving the issues associated with Mutnick’s motion for preliminary
`
`injunction, or any other substantive matter in the Hall and Mutnick matters, the Court should
`
`consider and rule on the threshold question of personal jurisdiction, presented in the Clearview
`
`Defendants’ concurrently filed motion to dismiss or to transfer.
`
`3.
`
`Given Mutnick’s delay in filing for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs will not be
`
`prejudiced by a stay of this case while the parties brief, and the Court resolves, the issue of whether
`
`the Clearview Defendants are subject to jurisdiction in this venue and whether these matters should
`
`be transferred to the Southern District of New York, where there is jurisdiction over all of the
`
`Clearview Defendants.
`
` WHEREFORE, for these reasons and those in the accompanying Memorandum of Law,
`
`the Clearview Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter an order staying the above-
`
`captioned matters pending the Court’s decision on the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
`
`Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 47 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:381
`
`DATED: April 27, 2020
`
`
`
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By: /s/ Lee Wolosky
`
`Lee Wolosky (admitted pro hac vice)
`Andrew J. Lichtman (pro hac vice pending)
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`919 Third Avenue
`New York, New York 10022-3908
`Phone: (212) 891-1600
`lwolosky@jenner.com
`alichtman@jenner.com
`
`Howard S. Suskin
`David P. Saunders
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`353 North Clark Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Phone: (312) 222-9350
`hsuskin@jenner.com
`
`dsaunders@jenner.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Clearview AI, Inc.,
` Hoan Ton-That, and Richard Schwartz
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 47 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:382
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on April 27, 2020 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court
`
`using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a Notice of Electronic Filing to all counsel of
`
`record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Lee Wolosky
` Lee Wolosky
`
`4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
