Sinclair v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc.

Filing 121

ORDER terminating 120 Letter Motion to Stay. It is well-established that the Court must have subject matter jurisdiction of Plaintiff's individual claims for his class claims to proceed. Pa. Pub. Sch. Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Morgan Stan ley & Co., 772 F.3d 111, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2014). For that reason, the Court will resolve the question of subject matter jurisdiction before addressing the question of class certification. DE 120 resolved. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 9/23/2024) (vfr)

Download PDF
Case 1:20-cv-04528-LTS-GWG Proskauer:» Document 120 Filed 09/20/24 Page 1 of 2 ProsKauer Rose LLP Eleven Times Square New YorK, NY 10036-8299 MEMO ENDORSED September 20, 2024 Elise M. Bloom Member of the Firm ViaECF d +1.212.969.3410 f 212.969.2900 ebloom@proskauer.com www.proskauer.com The Honorable Laura Taylor Swain U.S. District Comi, Southern Disti·ict of New York 500 Pearl Su-eet New York, New York 10007 Re: Rodney Sinclair et al. v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. , No. 20 Civ. 4528 (LTS) (GWG) Dear Chief Judge Swain: We represent Defendant Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. (the "Campaign") in the abovereferenced action. We write regarding Plaintiff Rodney Sinclair's ("Plaintiff') second renewed motion for class ce1iification, which his counsel filed on the evening of September 18, 2024 without meeting and confeITing with the Campaign as required by Your Honor 's Individual Rule 2.b. For the reasons explained below, the Campaign respectfully requests that the Comi hold Plaintiffs second renewed motion for class ce1iification in abeyance pending a response from the Campaign limited to the jurisdictional issue, which we expect to file by October 2, and a decision on whether this Comi has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs individual claims. The Campaign asked Plaintiff's counsel for their position, and they stated that they "oppose Defendant's request because Plaintiff believes the issues can be decided in tandem in a single order." The Court previously denied Plaintiff's first two motions for class ce1iification for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (ECF Nos. 89, 116.) In its most recent order, the Comi denied Plaintiff's first renewed motion for class ce1iification "without prejudice to any application to litigate the claims in a fornm of competent jurisdiction .... " (ECF No. 116.) With respect to Plaintiff's individual claims, the Comi ordered Plaintiff to "show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction" and directed Plaintiff, by September 18, to "explain whether and on what basis the Court has diversity jurisdiction to hear Mr. Sinclair's individual claims .... " (Id.) Notwithstanding the Comi's order asking Plaintiff to respond on the limited issue of jurisdiction and in disregard of Your Honor 's Individual Rule 2.b, Plaintiff filed a second renewed motion for class certification. (ECF Nos. 117-119.) Because the Comi must have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's individual claims for his class claims to proceed, the Campaign respectfully requests that the Comi resolve the question of jurisdiction before engaging in class ce1iification proceedings. Indeed, proceeding with yet another motion for class certification before the Comi has detennined whether it has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims would be a waste of judicial resources as well as the resources of the paiiies. This is paiiiculai·ly hue because Plaintiff again relies on declai·ations of field organizers from outside of Massachusetts in suppo1i of his motion, and the Campaign would need to file another motion to Beijing I Boca Raton I Boston I Chicago I Hong Kong I London I Los Angeles I New Orleans I New Yori( I Paris I Sao Paulo I Washington, OC Case 1:20-cv-04528-LTS-GWG Document 120 Filed 09/20/24 Page 2 of 2 Proskauer:» The Honorable Laura Taylor Swain September 20, 2024 Page2 sti·ike those declarations. If Plaintiffs counsel had met and confe1Ted with counsel for the Campaign prior to filing his second renewed motion, the Campaign would have advised Plaintiff's counsel of its position and asked that Plaintiff wait to file his motion. Accordingly, the Campaign respectfully requests that the Court hold Plaintiff's second renewed motion for class certification in abeyance until after the Court has resolved the threshold issue of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. We thank the Court for its consideration of this request. Respectfully submitted, Isl Elise M Bloom Elise M . Bloom cc: All Counsel of Record (via ECF)) It is well-established that the Comi must have subject matter jurisdiction of Plaintiff's individual claims for his class claims to proceed. Pa. Pub. Sch. Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 772 F.3d 111, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2014). For that reason, the Comi will resolve the question of subject matter jurisdiction before addressing the question of class ce1iification. DE 120 resolved. SO ORDERED. 9/23/24 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain, ChiefUSDJ

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?