Angela Henderlight v. Zealthy, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT USDC SDNY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ff pocUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FI ANGELA HENDERLIGHT, ) DOC #: ) DATE FILED;_3/24/202¢ Plaintiff, ) ) No. 1:26-cv-00467 Vv. ) ) Judge Valerie Caproni ZEALTHY, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSEED MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE COURT’S RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon all prior pleadings and proceedings, and the accompanying Memorandum of Law dated March 23, 2026, Defendant Zealthy, Inc. will move this Court, before the Honorable Valerie Caproni at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 20C, New York, NY 10007, for an order staying all proceedings in this case and vacating the Initial Pretrial Conference scheduled for April 3, 2026. Counsel for Defendant has conferred with counsel for Plaintiff regarding this motion and counsel for Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.

Dated: March 23, 2026 Respectfully submitted, ZEALTHY, INC. /s/ Alexander Talel By one of its attorneys Alexander Talel, Esq. ICE MILLER LLP 1500 Broadway, 29" FL New York, NY 10036 Telephone: 212-824-4975 Fax: 212-824-4982 alex.talel@icemiller.com Counsel for Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ANGELA HENDERLIGHT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 1:26-cv-00467 v. ) ) Judge Valerie Caproni ZEALTHY, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS UNOPPOSEED MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE COURT’S RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION I. INTRODUCTION On March 5, 2026, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF #13) as Defendant asserts that Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any disputes arising from her account with Zealthy. Defendant now requests the Court to stay all further proceedings in this action pending the Court’s decision on Defendant’s pending Motion to Compel Arbitration. Counsel for Defendant has discussed this Motion with counsel for Plaintiff and Plaintiff does not oppose the motion and agrees that this action should be stayed pending the Court’s decision on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. II. ARGUMENT A. THE COURT HAS DISCRETION TO GRANT A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AND IN THE CASE OF A MOTION TO STAY PENDING THE COURT’S DECISION ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, THE MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED ABSENT A COMPELLING REASON TO DENY IT “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936). “The decision whether to issue a stay is therefore firmly within a district court's discretion.” Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 630 F. Supp. 2d 295, 304 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Courts differentiate between applications for a stay of discovery made in connection with motions to compel arbitration and motions to dismiss. In cases such as the instant case, where a

stay is sought pending a motion to compel arbitration, the courts in this Second Circuit have granted stays without even considering the three-factor test1 traditionally applied in determining whether a stay of discovery should be granted. Alvarez v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., No. 2:19- CV-03343 (JS) (JMW), 2021 WL 2349370, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 7, 2021). “[A] stay pending a motion to compel arbitration should be granted absent compelling reasons to deny it.” Merida Capital Partners III LP v. Fernane, No. 25 CV 01235(JAV), 2025 WL 1541072 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2025) citing Alvarez, 2021 WL 2349370 at *4. B. THERE IS NO COMPELING REASON TO DENY THE STAY Here Plaintiff agrees that the requested stay should be granted and there is no compelling

reason to deny it. Granting the stay allows the Parties to avoid a potential waste of their resources that would likely occur if the Court were to grant Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. Further, a stay would avoid the potential waste of precious judicial resources. III. CONCLUSION There is no compelling reason to deny the requested stay and thus the Court should grant the stay pending its decision on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, and stay all proceedings in this action including the submission of a Joint Letter by March 26, 2026 as required

1 In evaluating whether to stay discovery courts generally apply a three factor test: (1) whether the defendant has made a strong showing that the plaintiff's claim is unmeritorious; (2) the breadth of discovery and the burden of responding to it; and (3) the risk of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the stay. Alloway v Bowlero Corp., No. 2:24-cv-04738 (SJB), 2026 WL 493952 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2026). under the Court’s Order of January 21, 2026 (ECF #7), and vacating the initial pretrial conference set for April 3, 2026. Dated: March 23, 2026 Respectfully submitted, ZEALTHY, INC. /s/ Alexander Talel By one of its attorneys Alexander Talel, Esq. ICE MILLER LLP 1500 Broadway, 29" FL New York, NY 10036 Telephone: 212-824-4975 Fax: 212-824-4982 alex.talel@icemiller.com Counsel for Defendant

CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT I, Alexander Talel, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts of the State of New York and in the Southern District of New York, hereby certify that the Memorandum of Law submitted herewith contains 647 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Local Rule 7.1. This certificate is prepared in reliance on the word-count function of the word processing system used to prepare the document. Dated: March 23, 2026 ICE MILLER LLP By: /s/ Alexander Talel

Application GRANTED. The joint submission deadline of March 26, 2026, and Initial Pretrial Conference scheduled for Friday, April 3, 2026, are adjourned sine die. The case is STAYED pending the Court's decision on Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration at Dkt. 13. SO ORDERED. 3/24/2026

HON. VALERIE CAPRONI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE