Ramirez v. EMSG, Inc. et al.

Opinion

LAW OFFICE OF MARK R. KOOK Two Park Avenue, Floor 20 * New York, NY 10016 « Tel. (212) 766-4100 mkook@kooklaw.com June 8, 2026 By Email Hon. Margeret M. Garnett United States District Court, Southern District of NY 40 Foley Square Courtroom 906 New, New York 10007 Re: Ramirez v. EMSG, Inc. et al., No.: 24-cv-1786 Letter in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Case Dear Judge Garnett: My firm represents Defendants. On June 5, 2026, Plaintiffs e-filed a Letter-Motion seeking a stay of this action pending resolution of a Motion to Stay by the Plaintiffs and Opt-in Plaintiffs in a related case, Francisco and Bravo v. EMSG, Inc. et al. on the grounds that the parties reached an oral settlement agreement. There was no agreement. Indeed, when Plaintiff's attorney sent some written documents that supposedly reflected the terns if the “oral” agreement, Plaintiffs’ attorneys sent a Release that fails to even mention Leslie Ramirez’s other separate lawsuit, i.e., this case which also alleges meritless sexual discrimination claims. In addition the supposed Offers of Judgment has as its first recipient Leslie Ramirez, to whom Mr. Lee wants to award $10,000 in contradiction even with the discussions last Thursday. There is no bar to the 6 other Plaintiffs here, or any other person joining Ms. Ramirez in her separate lawsuit — which was filed as a class action. Moreover, there is no Release in the various after-the-fact Offers of Judgment, payment terms, etc. Depositions were scheduled to continue in the Francisco case almost on a daily basis, through June 12, 2026. There is no oral agreement set forth in a transcript in open court, and certainly no written Settlement Agreement. See Conway v. Healthfirst Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141468 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2024); Greenway Greenway Mews Realty, L.L.C. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc, 180 A.D.3d 412, 118 N.Y.S.3d 104 (1* Dep’t Feb. 4, 2020). As a matter of law, there is no oral agreement to settle any case here.

Hon. Margeret M. Garnett Page 2

I greatly appreciate Your Honor’s consideration. Thank you. Respectfully, Wark ook Mark R. Kook Cc: All Counsel (by e-file)

Having considered both parties' submissions, see Dkt. Nos. 44-46, the present matter is STAYED pending resolution of the motion to enforce in Francisco. The parties are ORDERED to file a joint status letter by no later than July 15, 2026, or within one week of the Francisco court's ruling, whichever is sooner, updating the Court on the motion's status and next steps in the present case. The conference currently scheduled for Monday, June 29, 2026 is ADJOURNED sine die.

SO ORDERED. Dated June 15, 2026.

HON, MENG! REN GARNETT UNITED 'S7ATESDISTRICT JUDGE