`v.
`
`
`NETFLIX, INC., et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00807-MAB Document 77 Filed 08/03/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #407
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`VILLAGE OF SHILOH,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00807-MAB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DISH DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO WITHDRAW AMENDED MOTION TO
`RECONSIDER REMAND ORDER
`
`Defendants DISH Network Corp. and DISH Network L.L.C. (together, “DISH”)
`
`respectfully move to withdraw their amended motion to reconsider the Court’s March 24, 2022
`
`order remanding this removed action to state court (Dkt. 73). The concern underlying that
`
`reconsideration motion—that it would result in duplicative class action litigation in state and
`
`federal court—has been addressed by the state court. DISH has requested Plaintiff’s consent to
`
`this motion, but Plaintiff has not yet responded.
`
`In remanding this action, this Court recognized that remand will result in a “certainly not
`
`ideal” situation where duplicative lawsuits are proceeding in state and federal court—this action
`
`by the Village of Shiloh in Illinois state court, and the earlier filed case styled City of East St. Louis
`
`v. Netflix, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-561 (“East St. Louis Action”) before this Court. Dkt. 68 at 14.
`
`The Court added that “Defendants are not doomed to proceed simultaneously in both forums.
`
`Perhaps they will ask the state court judge to stay this case once it is remanded. Or they can move
`
`to stay the East St. Louis case that will remain in this District.” Id.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00807-MAB Document 77 Filed 08/03/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #408
`
`As this Court predicted, on April 25, 2022, Defendants Netflix, Inc., Hulu, LLC, Disney
`
`DTC, LLC, DISH, and DIRECTV, LLC jointly asked the state court to dismiss or stay the
`
`proceeding pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-619, based on the prior pending East St. Louis Action
`
`between the “same parties” for the “same cause.” On July 29, 2022, after a hearing on Defendants’
`
`motion, the state court issued an order staying the state court proceeding until further order of the
`
`court, and directing the parties to submit a joint report every six months as to the status of the East
`
`St. Louis Action. See Exhibit A. Accordingly, the risk of duplicative litigation has been avoided,
`
`and DISH’s amended motion to reconsider has become moot.
`
`WHEREFORE, DISH Network Corp. and DISH Network L.L.C. respectfully request that
`
`this Court enter an order granting them leave to withdraw their amended motion to reconsider
`
`remand, and granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`Date: August 3, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Matthew R. Friedman
`
`
`
`Pantelis Michalopoulos (pro hac vice)
`Matthew R. Friedman (pro hac vice)
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel: (202) 429-3000
`Fax: (202) 429-3902
`Email: pmichalopoulos@steptoe.com
`Email: mfriedman@steptoe.com
`
`Jared R. Butcher (pro hac vice)
`BERLINER CORCORAN & ROWE LLP
`1101 17th Street, NW
`Suite 1100
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel: (202) 293-5555
`Email: jbutcher@bcr-dc.com
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00807-MAB Document 77 Filed 08/03/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #409
`
`Jeffrey L. Schultz
`ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
`7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800
`St. Louis, Missouri 63105
`Tel: (314) 621-5070
`Fax: (314) 621-5065
`Email: jschultz@atllp.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants DISH Network Corp. and
`DISH Network L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00807-MAB Document 77 Filed 08/03/22 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #410
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on August 3, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
`
`filed electronically. Service of this filing will be made on all ECF-registered counsel by
`
`operation of the Court’s electronic filing system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Matthew R. Friedman
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
