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)

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
[e-mail]

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