1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 

et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 6:23-cv-553

MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b) and Local Civil Rules 7(e)-(g), Plaintiffs 

respectfully request that the Court expedite its consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment (ECF No. 10) and set a briefing schedule that allows for resolution of dispositive 

motions before the challenged rule’s effective date of December 26, 2023. Although Plaintiffs 

propose a schedule below that seeks to be fair to both sides, they stand ready to brief and argue 

dispositive motions on whatever expedited schedule the Court deems necessary to facilitate a 

decision before December 26. Plaintiffs have conferred with Defendants but have been unable to 

reach agreement, and understand that Defendants may propose their own competing schedule.

There is good cause for expedition. The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) 

published the rule challenged in this suit on October 27, 2023. See Standard for Determining Joint 

Employer Status, 88 Fed. Reg. 73,946, codified at 29 C.F.R. § 103.40 (“Joint Employer Rule” or 

Case 6:23-cv-00553-JCB Document 11 Filed 11/13/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 395
2 

“Rule”). Plaintiffs filed their complaint less than two weeks later (November 9) and their summary 

judgment motion the next business day (November 13) as soon as a judge was assigned. The Rule 

is set to take effect on December 26, 2023—the earliest effective date allowed under the 

Congressional Review Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(3); 88 Fed. Reg. at 74,017 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 

804(2)(A)). 

As explained in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and attached declarations, the 

Joint Employer Rule upends long-established standards governing the scope of employment 

relationships, and threatens billions of dollars in liability and costs. As Member Kaplan observed 

in dissent, the Rule’s consequences will be “catastrophic.” 88 Fed. Reg. at 73,987. If the Rule 

takes effect, Plaintiffs’ member-employers will be forced to reevaluate virtually every contractual 

relationship to identify potential liabilities. ECF No. 10-12 ¶ 11 (NRF Decl.); ECF No. 10-11 ¶ 20 

(NACS Decl.); ECF No. 10-7 ¶ 15 (ABC Decl.). Many will need to change or eliminate their 

quality-control practices—risking the diminishment of their image and brand reputation. See ECF 

No. 10-5 ¶ 11 (U.S. Chamber Decl.); ECF No. 10-9 ¶¶ 9-11 (IFA Decl.). Some of Plaintiffs’ 

members “may even decline certain business opportunities out of fear of joint-employer liability, 

killing opportunities for small businesses and harming the economy.” ECF No. 10-6 ¶ 13 (AHLA 

Decl.). In fact, given the Rule’s looming ramifications, some members already face “confusion 

and a dramatic rise in operational and risk management costs.” ECF No. 10-13 ¶ 13 (RLC Decl.). 

To avoid (or at least limit) these harms, a decision before the Rule’s effective date is of the utmost 

importance.

It is Plaintiffs’ understanding that, on or around November 16, Defendants plan to file a 

motion to transfer this case to a circuit court of appeals (even though, to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, no 

circuit court has ever exercised original jurisdiction over a party’s challenge to an NLRB 

Case 6:23-cv-00553-JCB Document 11 Filed 11/13/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 396
3 

rulemaking in the history of the NLRA). Although Plaintiffs firmly disagree with that requested 

relief, and believe the present rule challenge must be adjudicated by this Court, Plaintiffs propose 

a schedule that would allow for parallel briefing of Defendants’ transfer motion concurrently with 

summary judgment briefing, rather than a staggered briefing schedule that we understand 

Defendants to prefer. In light of the compressed timeline necessitated by the NLRB’s decision to 

make the Rule effective on December 26, it is essential to have all dispositive motions briefed and 

considered together to allow for timely resolution.

For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue an order setting forth 

the following schedule for briefing on (i) Plaintiffs’ already-filed summary-judgment motion (with 

any cross-motion for summary judgment folded into Defendants’ proposed response deadline) and 

(ii) any transfer motion filed by Defendants:

Filing Plaintiffs’ Deadline Defendants’ Deadline 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment and 

Defendants’ Motion to Transfer 

Monday, November 13 Thursday, November 16 

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment and 

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ 

Motion to Transfer 

Thursday, November 30 Thursday, November 30 

Plaintiffs’ Reply in support of 

Summary Judgment and 

Defendants’ Reply in support of 

Transfer 

Thursday, December 7 Thursday, December 7 

If this schedule does not allow the Court to render a decision on the merits by the Rule’s 

December 26 effective date, Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Court order a schedule that does. 

Case 6:23-cv-00553-JCB Document 11 Filed 11/13/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 397
4 

Dated: November 13, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Pratik A. Shah 

Stephanie A. Maloney 

 D.C. Bar No. 1044276 (pro hac vice to be filed)

Jordan L. Von Bokern 

 D.C. Bar No. 1032962 (pro hac vice to be filed)

U.S. Chamber Litigation Center

1615 H Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20062-2000

Telephone: (202) 463-5337

smaloney@uschamber.com

jvonbokern@uschamber.com

Attorneys for the Chamber of Commerce of the 

United States of America

Maury Baskin

 D.C. Bar No. 248898 (pro hac vice to be filed)

Littler Mendelson

815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Suite 400

Washington, D.C. 20006

Telephone: (202) 842-3400

Facsimile: (202) 842-0011

mbaskin@littler.com

Counsel to Associated Builders and Contractors 

and International Franchise Association

Angelo I. Amador

 D.C. Bar No. 480031 (pro hac vice to be filed)

Restaurant Law Center

2055 L Street, N.W.

Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20036

Telephone: (202) 331-5913

Counsel for the Restaurant Law Center

Pratik A. Shah (Lead Attorney)

 D.C. Bar No. 497108 (pro hac vice)

James E. Tysse 

 D.C. Bar No. 9787522 (pro hac vice)

James C. Crowley

 D.C. Bar No. 208946 (pro hac vice)

Margaret O. Rusconi

 D.C. Bar No. 1719371 (pro hac vice)

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

2001 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Telephone: (202) 887-4000

Facsimile: (202) 887-4288

pshah@akingump.com

jtysse@akingump.com

jcrowley@akingump.com

mrusconi@akingump.com

Laura P. Warrick

 Texas Bar No. 24079546

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

2300 N. Field Street, Suite 1800

Dallas, TX 75201

Telephone: (214) 969-4770

Facsimile: (214) 969-4343

lwarrick@akingump.com

Counsel to Plaintiffs Chamber of Commerce of the 

United States of America, American Hotel and 

Lodging Association; Associated Builders and 

Contractors; Associated General Contractors of 

America; Coalition for a Democratic Workplace; 

International Franchise Association; Longview 

Chamber of Commerce; National Association of 

Convenience Stores; National Retail Federation; 

Restaurant Law Center; Texas Association of 

Business; and Texas Restaurant Association

Case 6:23-cv-00553-JCB Document 11 Filed 11/13/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 398
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that on November 13, 2023, the foregoing document was 

electronically submitted with the clerk of the court for the United States District Court, Eastern 

District of Texas, using the electronic case file system of the court. I hereby certify that I have 

served all counsel of record electronically or by another manner authorized by Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 5(b)(2). 

/s/ Pratik A. Shah 

Pratik A. Shah

Case 6:23-cv-00553-JCB Document 11 Filed 11/13/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 399
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

The undersigned certifies that on November 13, 2023, the undersigned complied with the 

meet and confer requirement in Local Rule CV-7(h). The undersigned—as well as James E. Tysse, 

James C. Crowley, and Margaret O. Rusconi—participated in a Zoom call with Defendants’ 

counsel Christine Flack, Dawn Goldstein, Shawnell Barnett, and Elisabeth Campbell. Despite the 

undersigned’s efforts, the parties could not reach an agreement on the briefing schedule. Plaintiffs 

were willing to accept any schedule Defendants proposed, so long as the schedule allowed for a 

December 26 decision and (relatedly) provided for simultaneous briefing of Plaintiffs’ 

summary-judgment motion and Defendants’ anticipated transfer motion. Defendants maintained 

that a staggered schedule is necessary so that their transfer motion would be fully briefed first. In 

the end, the parties reached an impasse, leaving the matter for the court to resolve. 

/s/ Pratik A. Shah 

Pratik A. Shah

Case 6:23-cv-00553-JCB Document 11 Filed 11/13/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 400