Haythe et al v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Filing 26

ORDER terminating 24 Letter Motion to Stay Deadline to File Reply addressed to Judge Valerie E. Caproni from Arthur E. Brown dated August 1, 2022. The deadline for Defendant's reply in support of its motion to compel arbitration is extended to August 10, 2022. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 8/2/2022) (vfr)

Download PDF
MEMO ENDORSED Case 1:22-cv-03509-VEC Document 26 Filed 08/02/22 Page 1 of 2 Arthur E. Brown +1 212.836.8592 Direct Arthur.Brown@arnoldporter.com August 1, 2022 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 8/2/2022 VIA CM/ECF Hon. Valerie E. Caproni United States District Judge U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square, Room 240 New York, NY 10007 Re: Haythe, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-03509VEC Dear Judge Caproni: We represent Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) in the above-referenced action. We write to request that the Court grant SEA a stay of its deadline to file a reply in support of its Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Class Claims, and Stay All Proceedings (ECF No. 20), which reply would otherwise be due August 3, 2022. Plaintiffs do not consent to the requested stay. The basis for the requested stay is that Plaintiffs have stated that they intend to file an amended complaint on August 3, 2022, the same day that SEA’s reply in support of its arbitration motion is due. See ECF No. 23 at 3. Plaintiffs are not entitled to amend as of right, because more than 21 days have passed since service of the complaint and because SEA’s motion to compel arbitration is not a responsive pleading or a Rule 12 motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1); Ramasamy v. Essar Glob. Ltd., 825 F. Supp. 2d 466, 467 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Nor should the Court grant leave to amend, as any amendment would be futile in light of SEA’s pending arbitration motion. Nonetheless, in light of Plaintiffs’ stated plans, a stay of SEA’s reply would promote the efficient progress of this litigation. If Plaintiffs are permitted to proceed with their new complaint, SEA may wish to address that new complaint in its reply in support of arbitration, or the Court may wish SEA to file a renewed arbitration motion. If the Court denies Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment, SEA would prepare a reply in support of its current arbitration motion on a new schedule set by the Court. Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 250 West 55th Street | New York, NY 10019-9710 | www.arnoldporter.com Case 1:22-cv-03509-VEC Document 26 Filed 08/02/22 Page 2 of 2 August 1, 2022 Page 2 We thank the Court for its attention in this matter. Respectfully submitted, /s Arthur E. Brown Arthur E. Brown cc : Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Frederick J. Klorczyk, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. (by CM/ECF) The deadline for Defendant's reply in support of its motion to compel arbitration is extended to August 10, 2022. SO ORDERED. Date: 8/2/2022 HON. VALERIE CAPRONI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?