Opinion
Civil Action No.: 1:19-cv-10759-GHW
03-11-2020
Re: Sosa v. Under Armour Retail, Inc. et al
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
VIA ECF Hon. Lewis J. Liman
United States District Judge
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15C
New York, NY 10007 Dear Judge Liman:
This firm represents Defendants Under Armour Retail, Inc. and Under Armour Retail of New York, LLC (collectively, "Defendants") in the above-referenced action. We have conferred with Plaintiff's counsel and we write, with Plaintiff's concurrence, to jointly request a stay of this action under August 9, 2020.
By way of background, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March 2, 2020. (ECF Nos. 20-22.)
The parties respectfully request that this action be stayed to allow for the resolution of motions to dismiss in similar matters arising out of gift cards that do not include Braille, which are currently pending before the Court and other judges in this District and the Eastern District of New York. The stay would allow the parties to have the benefit of the Court's analysis of the issues in other matters which will inform their assessment of the pending case. It will also conserve resources of both the parties and the Court. Similar stays were recently granted on the same grounds by Judge Abrams in Delacruz v. Five Below, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-10294-RA (S.D.N.Y.) (ECF No. 16) and Matzura v. New Balance Athletics, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-11344-RA (S.D.N.Y.) (ECF No. 18), by Judge Caproni in Calcano v. Drybar Holdings LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-11389-VEC (S.D.N.Y.) (ECF No. 10), by Judge Woods in Calcano v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-09823-GHW (S.D.N.Y.) (ECF No. 24) and Delacruz v. Jamba Juice, Case No. 1:19-cv-10321-GHW (S.D.N.Y.) (ECF No. 20), by Judge Failla in Calcano v. Guess, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-10441-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) (ECF No. 18), by Judge Ramos in Dominguez v. Marshalls of MA, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-10626 (S.D.N.Y.) (ECF No. 20), and by Judge Daniels in Delacruz v. Converse Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-10293-GBD (S.D.N.Y.) (ECF No. 20.) The orders are enclosed for the Court's convenience.
Alternatively, should the Court not grant the requested stay, the parties jointly request that the Court "So Order" the below briefing schedule for Defendant's pending motion to dismiss.
• Deadline for Plaintiff to file his Opposition to Motion to Dismiss or First Amended Complaint ("FAC"): March 16, 2020;
• Deadline for Defendant to file Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Dismiss FAC (if FAC is filed): April 15, 2020;
• Deadline for Plaintiff to file Opposition to Motion to Dismiss FAC (if FAC is filed): May 15, 2020;
• Deadline for Defendant to file Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss FAC (if FAC is filed): May 29, 2020.
We thank the Court for its time and attention to this matter, and for its consideration of this application. Respectfully submitted, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP /s/ John W. Egan
John W. Egan cc: All counsel of record (via ECF) The Motion to Stay is DENIED. The briefing schedule proposed above is SO ORDERED. 3/11/2020.
SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
LEWIS J. LIMAN
United States District Judge
EXHIBIT 1
Image materials not available for display.
EXHIBIT 2
Image materials not available for display.
EXHIBIT 3
Image materials not available for display.
EXHIBIT 4
Image materials not available for display.
EXHIBIT 5
Image materials not available for display.
EXHIBIT 6
Image materials not available for display.
EXHIBIT 7
Image materials not available for display.
EXHIBIT 8
Image materials not available for display.