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)

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
[e-mail]
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