Stake.us New Jersey: Deadlines Stayed, Sept 18 Call Set
A federal judge in New Jersey stayed Stake.us's deadline to answer the Drake class action on September 10, 2026 and set a call for September 18 "to discuss further the early resolution of this case". What makes the order worth reading is what is not on this docket: every other Stake.us class action we have covered has turned on a motion to compel arbitration, and there is no such motion on any of this one's 23 entries.
The case is Nufio v. Sweepsteaks Ltd., No. 3:26-cv-08394 in the District of New Jersey, before District Judge Robert Kirsch and Magistrate Judge J. Brendan Day. We read the docket directly this morning, which is how we check everything we publish. Nothing here decides anything, nobody has admitted anything, and no settlement has been announced.
What did the New Jersey judge actually order?
Entry 23 is a text order in full, and this is all of the operative part, word for word:
Pursuant to the Telephone Conference conducted today, the Court hereby sets this matter for a Telephone Conference for 10:00 a.m. on Friday, September 18, 2026, to discuss further the early resolution of this case. In the interim, all deadlines for Defendants Sweepsteaks Ltd. d/b/a Stake.us and Kick Streaming Pty Ltd. to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 are hereby STAYED.
Two things sit in that paragraph. The first is the phrase "early resolution", which the court says the parties were already discussing on a call held that morning. The second is the freeze: the two corporate defendants no longer have a clock running to file an answer or a Rule 12 motion.
The sequence took ten days:
| Date | Entry | What happened |
|---|---|---|
| August 31 | 20 | Five defence lawyers admitted to appear for Sweepsteaks Ltd. and Kick Streaming Pty Ltd. |
| September 8 | 21 | Text order setting a telephone conference for September 10 |
| September 10 | 22 | Minute entry: "Telephone Conference held on 9/10/2026. Order to follow." |
| September 10 | 23 | Text order: Rule 12 deadlines stayed, further conference set for September 18 |
What makes this docket different from the other Stake.us cases?
What is missing from it. Every other Stake.us class action we have covered turns on one question, court or arbitration. This one does not:
| Case | Where the arbitration question stands |
|---|---|
| Virginia | A judge sent eight Stake.us players into individual arbitration on July 30 |
| Minnesota | A judge refused to compel arbitration on two grounds; the operator has taken that refusal to the Eighth Circuit |
| Missouri | Stayed over the same question, then partially lifted in August so Drake and Adin Ross could argue they do not belong in it |
| New Mexico | Stayed and partially lifted the same way; Drake and Adin Ross moved to dismiss on September 7 |
| New Jersey | No motion to compel arbitration on any of the 23 entries |
We read all 23 New Jersey entries in full today. What the court has instead is a conference about resolving the case early. That is a different track, and it is worth saying plainly that we do not know where it leads. "Early resolution" is standard language a judge can use for anything from a settlement conference to a narrowing of the issues, the September 18 call has not happened yet, and neither side has filed a public document saying what they discussed.
One more detail on this docket has no parallel in the others. On August 14 the plaintiff filed a third-party litigation funding disclosure under the District of New Jersey's Local Civil Rule 7.1.1, which requires a party to say whether an outside funder is paying for the case. That document exists on the docket; we have not read its contents and make no claim about what it discloses.
Who is covered by the freeze, and who is not?
The order names two defendants: Sweepsteaks Ltd. d/b/a Stake.us and Kick Streaming Pty Ltd. Sweepsteaks Limited is the company behind the brand.
The complaint that came over from state court also names Aubrey Drake Graham, Adin Ross, Livingston Allen (DJ Akademiks), George Nguyen and unnamed Does. No notice of appearance for any of those individuals shows up in the federal entries we read, and the September 10 order does not mention them. We cannot tell from the public docket whether they have been served in the federal case.
What should a New Jersey player do about this?
Nothing about your account changes. No order in this case touches balances, redemptions or site access, and New Jersey banned the dual-currency model in 2025 regardless of what happens here.
The part that does have a deadline is your own, and it is not paused by anything the court did this week. As we set out when Stake.us moved this case to federal court, Count V is built on N.J. Stat. section 2A:40-1, and section 2A:40-5 gives a loser that civil action only "provided such action is brought within 6 calendar months after payment or delivery". The clock runs from each payment you made, not from the filing of a class action and not from a judge scheduling a conference. Money you paid more than six calendar months ago is outside that window whatever the parties agree on September 18.
If you are weighing where to play at all, our ranked list of sweepstakes casinos shows where Stake.us sits against brands with no comparable litigation, and our Stake.us alternatives page sets out the closest like-for-like options.
Sources & documents
- CourtListener docket, Nufio v. Sweepsteaks Ltd., No. 3:26-cv-08394 (D.N.J.) - 23 entries, read September 12, 2026. Entries 21, 22 and 23 are quoted from the clerk's own text
- CourtListener entry search for the Sweepsteaks captions since September 9, 2026 - how we found the order
- Notice of removal, Nufio v. Sweepsteaks Ltd., ECF 1 - the July 8, 2026 filing that brought the case to federal court
21+. Court filings describe allegations, not findings. Nothing above is legal advice. If gambling is a problem, call or text 1-800-GAMBLER. Responsible gaming resources.
How we rate the brands involved
Sources & documents
- www.courtlistener.com/docket/73593119/nufio-v-sweepsteaks-ltd/
- www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?q=caseName%3A%28%22Sweepsteaks%22%29&type=rd&entry_date_filed_after=2026-09-09&order_by=entry_date_filed+desc
- storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.602822/gov.uscourts.njd.602822.1.0.pdf
Every factual claim in this article maps to one of the sources above - that is the publishing bar, not a goal.
FAQ
Has Stake.us settled the New Jersey lawsuit?
No. The only thing on the record is a judge scheduling a call "to discuss further the early resolution of this case" and staying the defendants' deadline to respond. No settlement has been filed, announced or approved.
Does the stay mean the case is over?
No. It stays the two corporate defendants' deadline to answer or file a Rule 12 motion. The case remains open and the next scheduled event is the September 18 telephone conference.
Can I still claim my Stake.us losses in New Jersey?
Only money you paid within the last six calendar months is inside the window that section 2A:40-5 sets, and that is a question for a lawyer rather than for us. This case does not pause that clock.
Free SC drops, new casinos, and law changes - for your state.
One email a week. No spam, unsubscribe anytime. If your state bans sweeps, you get law updates instead of offers - that's the point.