IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

TIMOTHY NELLIS, JANEL DRANES, 

AND LUCY SOUSA, on behalf of 

themselves and all other similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

VIVID SEATS LTD., an Illinois 

corporation, and VIVID SEATS LLC, a 

Delaware Corporation, 

Defendants.

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 1:20-cv-02486 

Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. 

JOINT STATUS REPORT 

Plaintiffs Timothy Nellis, Janel Dranes and Lucy Sousa (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant 

Vivid Seats LLC (“Defendant” or “Vivid Seats,” and together with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”) 

submit the following Joint Status Report pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order Regarding 

Initial Status Reports and the Court’s April 23, 2020 Minute Order (Dkt. 5) and state as follows:1

A. Attorneys Of Record 

Counsel for Plaintiffs Counsel for Vivid Seats 

Steven D. Liddle

Nicholas A. Coulson 

LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C. 

975 East Jefferson Avenue 

Detroit, Michigan 48207 

Telephone: (313) 392-0015 

Facsimile: (313) 392-0025 

Email: sliddle@ldclassaction.com 

 ncoulson@ldclassaction.com 

Mark S. Mester 

Robert C. Collins III 

Dylan Glenn 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 

Chicago, Illinois 60611 

Telephone: (312) 876-7700 

Facsimile: (312) 993-9767 

Email: mark.mester@lw.com 

 robert.collins@lw.com 

 dylan.glenn@lw.com 

1

 Plaintiffs have sued Vivid Seats LLC as well as “Vivid Seats LTD.” See Compl. (Dkt. 1) ¶ 14. Vivid 

Seats LTD., however, was previously consolidated into Vivid Seats LLC in 2016 and does not exist. 
B. Nature of the Claims 

1. Plaintiffs’ Position 

Plaintiffs used Defendant’s online marketplace to purchase event tickets offered for sale 

by third parties. For providing such a service, Defendant charges a fee to both buyer and seller. 

An essential feature of the service is an oft-repeated and heavily marketed guarantee that if the 

event in question is cancelled, a refund will be issued. By its own admission (including herein) 

Defendant has attempted to skirt that refund guarantee by providing customers with expiring 

credits instead. Rather than challenging the allegations at the heart of the lawsuit, Defendant 

asserts that it should be protected by forcing these claims into binding arbitration. But as 

Plaintiffs will demonstrate in response to any effort to require them to arbitrate their claims, 

Defendant’s website is so constructed as to utterly fail to put its users on notice that they are 

purportedly surrendering their right to go to court. Under the relevant law, this means that there 

is no contract under which Plaintiffs can be said to have agreed to arbitrate their plainly 

meritorious claims, and those claims should continue in this Court. The overwhelmingly similar, 

indeed functionally identical, treatment of Plaintiffs and the Class make this case ideally suited 

for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. 

2. Vivid Seats’ Position 

Vivid Seats is an online marketplace through which Plaintiffs allege to have purchased 

tickets to events held by third parties. Plaintiffs assert claims that Vivid Seats failed to properly 

refund their ticket purchases when events were canceled by third parties as a result of the global 

COVID-19 pandemic. But when Plaintiffs purchased their tickets, they expressly agreed, inter 

alia, that “any and all disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of or relating to . . . any 

tickets or other items sold or purchased through this site shall be resolved exclusively through 

final and binding arbitration rather than in court.” Vivid Seats Terms of Use, https://www. 
vividseats.com/terms.html. Moreover, Plaintiffs agreed that any disputes as to whether 

Plaintiffs’ claims are subject to arbitration shall be resolved by the arbitrator and not the Court. 

See id. Plaintiffs also expressly agreed to arbitrate their claims on a non-class basis. See id. 

Notwithstanding their express agreement to arbitrate and the strong federal policy in 

favor of arbitration, Plaintiffs now refuse to submit their claims to arbitration on a non-class 

basis. Vivid Seats therefore intends to move to compel arbitration and to dismiss this action. 

Should Plaintiffs’ claims nonetheless proceed before this Court, Vivid Seats intends to 

show that the claims lack merit and are not amenable to class treatment. Notwithstanding the 

fact that the events at issue were canceled by third parties in light of the global COVID-19 

pandemic, Vivid Seats has fully refunded the purchase price of tickets and/or offered a 110% 

credit toward the purchase of event tickets along with an additional donation to charity equaling 

10% of the ticket price, including for the purchases made by Plaintiffs. Thus, contrary to 

Plaintiffs’ assertions, Vivid Seats does contest Plaintiffs’ claims and makes no admissions 

regarding those claims. Neither Plaintiffs nor the members of the proposed class have been 

injured, and regardless, determining causation and injury would require numerous individual 

inquiries that make class treatment utterly inappropriate here. 

C. Service Of Process 

Vivid Seats, the sole Defendant, waived service of process on May 29, 2020. See Dkt. 

__. 

D. Principal Legal And Factual Issues 

The Parties expect the principal legal and factual issues in this case will include the 

following: (a) whether Plaintiffs’ claims are subject to arbitration; (b) whether the proposed 

class can be certified under Rule 23; (c) whether Vivid Seats breached its agreement with ticket 

purchasers or otherwise violated state consumer protection laws; (d) whether Plaintiffs or other 
members of the proposed class are entitled to refunds and, if so, whether credits provided by 

Vivid Seats to any Plaintiffs and/or proposed class members constitute refunds; (e) whether 

Plaintiffs and/or proposed class members already agreed to and/or accepted a refund; and 

(f) whether Plaintiffs and the putative class are entitled to relief. 

E. Jury Demand, Trial And Magistrate Judge 

Plaintiffs have made a jury demand. The Parties have not ascertained a date for trial and 

acknowledge that doing so would be premature at this time. The Parties do not at this time 

unanimously consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge. 

F. Discovery 

No discovery has occurred to date. The Parties agree that in the interests of judicial 

economy and efficiency, discovery should be stayed until after the Court has ruled on Vivid 

Seats’ forthcoming motion to compel arbitration and determined the appropriate forum for this 

case. The Parties further agree that if the Court denies the motion to compel arbitration such that 

the action proceeds in this Court, discovery should focus on the issue of class certification and 

whether any of Plaintiffs’ claims are properly amenable to class treatment. 

G. Settlement Discussion And Settlement Conference 

No settlement discussions have occurred to date, and at least one party does not believe a 

settlement is possible before the Court rules on the forthcoming motion to compel arbitration. 

The Parties, however, remain open to the possibility of settlement. 

H. Pending And Anticipated Motions 

No motions are currently pending before the Court. On May 29, 2020, however, 

Plaintiffs filed a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to 

transfer this and other cases to multidistrict litigation for coordinated or consolidated pretrial 

proceedings. See Motion for Transfer of Actions to Northern District of Illinois Pursuant to 28 
USC § 1407 for Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings (Dkt. 1), In re Secondary Ticket Market 

Refund Litigation, MDL No. 2951 (J.P.M.L. May 29, 2020). Vivid Seats intends to oppose the 

motion to transfer. 

In addition, as discussed above, Vivid Seats intends to file a motion to compel arbitration 

and to dismiss this case. See disc. supra at 2. In the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, 

the Parties jointly request that the Court stagger briefing so that the Court first considers the 

motion to compel arbitration before briefing on any other motion to dismiss. Under the Parties’ 

proposed schedule, Vivid Seats will file its motion to compel arbitration within sixty days after 

the request to waive service was sent (i.e., by July 13, 2020). Plaintiffs will file any response 

brief to Vivid Seats’ forthcoming motion within thirty days of the filing of that motion, and 

Vivid Seats will file any reply brief within twenty-one days of the filing of any response brief. 

In the event the Court does not grant Vivid Seats’ forthcoming motion to compel arbitration, the 

Parties respectfully request that the Court set a briefing schedule on any other motion to dismiss 

(e.g., under Rule 12(b)(6)) at that time. 

Dated: June 5, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Nicholas A. Coulson 

Nicholas A. Coulson, One of the attorneys for 

Plaintiffs Timothy Nellis, Janel Dranes and 

Lucy Sousa 

Steven D. Liddle 

Nicholas A. Coulson 

LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C. 

975 East Jefferson Avenue 

Detroit, Michigan 48207 

Telephone: (313) 392-0015 

Facsimile: (313) 392-0025 

Email: sliddle@ldclassaction.com 

 ncoulson@ldclassaction.com 
/s/ Robert C. Collins III (with consent) 

Robert C. Collins III, One of the attorneys for 

Defendant Vivid Seats LLC 

Mark S. Mester (Illinois Bar No. 6196140) 

Robert C. Collins III (Illinois Bar No. 6304674) 

Dylan Glenn (Illinois Bar No. 6326952) 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 

Chicago, Illinois 60611 

Telephone: (312) 876-7700 

Facsimile: (312) 993-9767 

Email: mark.mester@lw.com 

 robert.collins@lw.com 

 dylan.glenn@lw.com