Minchala v. Marriott International Inc. et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting in part 18 Letter Motion to Stay in Light of Additional Information Regarding Parallel Litigation addressed to Judge Arun Subramanian from Richard Bahrenburg dated February 2, 2024. Defendant's answer deadline is extended by 30 days. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause by February 6, 2024, why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice given the CBA proceeding and failure to bring this action in accordance with the CBA. If plaintiff's counsel agrees that this case may be dismissed without prejudice, then it should file an appropriate notice on the docket by February 6 (no court signature is needed). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on 2/5/2024) (vfr)

Case 1:23-cv-09398-AS Document 18 Filed 02/02/24 Page 1 of 2
366 Madison Avenue | 7th Floor
New York, New York 10017
Tel [phone] | Fax [phone]

Writer’s Direct Contact:
RICHARD BAHRENBURG
212-453-5937
[e-mail]

February 2, 2024

VIA ECF
Honorable Arun Subramanian
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re:

Catherine M. Minchala v. Marriott International Inc., et al.
Index No.: 23-CV-09398 (AS)

Dear Judge Subramanian:
Our firm represents defendants Marriott International Inc., Sean Roche, Scott Selby,
Shantrell Gaulden, and Tyler Wood (“Defendants”) in the above-referenced matter. For the
reasons set forth below, the parties renew their request to stay this action, or in the alternative,
that Defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint be extended 30
days.
By way of background, Plaintiff is a union member whose employment, and terms and
conditions of employment, are covered by a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"). Pursuant
to the terms of the CBA, Plaintiff's union must first assert the claims of Plaintiff via a Notice of
Claim to the Office of the Contract Arbitrator. If Plaintiff chooses to bring an action in any court
instead of at the Office of the Contract Arbitrator, she would need to follow specific steps
outlined in the CBA. Plaintiff has not followed the steps in the CBA permitting her to bring an
action in court.
On or about November 30, 2023, Plaintiff's attorney filed a Notice of Claim in the Office
of the Contract Arbitrator alleging claims identical to those in this action, pursuant to the terms of
the CBA. See Exhibit A. Plaintiff's counsel was unaware that Plaintiff filed this action pro se
and acknowledges she did not abide by the steps outlined in the CBA for filing this action.
Defendants notified Plaintiff's counsel of this action and that the claims here not only violate the
terms of the CBA but are wholly duplicative of the Notice of Claim. As such, Plaintiff's counsel
requested consent to request a stay of this action so that in the event the claims in this action
are not resolved by the Office of the Contract Arbitrator, Plaintiff could follow the steps in the
CBA to maintain this action. Accordingly, in light of the parallel complaints alleging identical
claims, the parties respectfully renew their request to stay this matter pending resolution of the
action pending before the Office of the Contract Arbitrator. Alternatively, should the Court not
stay this action, the parties respectfully request a 30 day extension of time for Defendants to
answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint.

Case 1:23-cv-09398-AS Document 18 Filed 02/02/24 Page 2 of 2
We thank the Court for its time.
Sincerely,
FordHarrison LLP
Defendant's answer deadline is extended by 30
days. Plaintiff is ordered to show cause by
February 6, 2024, why this case should not be
dismissed without prejudice given the CBA
proceeding and failure to bring this action in
accordance with the CBA. If plaintiff’s counsel
agrees that this case may be dismissed without
prejudice, then it should file an appropriate notice
on the docket by February 6 (no court signature is
needed).

/s/ Richard Bahrenburg
Richard Bahrenburg

SO ORDERED.
www.fordharrison.com

Arun Subramanian, U.S.D.J.
Date: February 5, 2024