Rasmy v. Marriott International, Inc.
This text of Rasmy v. Marriott International, Inc. (Rasmy v. Marriott International, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NN lus Laboris USA Global HR Lawyers 300 Connell Drive | Suite 4100 . Berkeley Heights, New Jersey 07922 & Fo rd H arrison Tel 973-646-7300 | Fax 973-646-7301 Writer's Direct Contact: MARK A. SALOMAN 973-646-7305 msaloman @fordharrison.com USDC SDNY ~~ ELECTRONICALLY FILED VIA ECF DOC #: DATE FILED: The Honorable Alison J. Nathan, U.S.D.J. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 2102 New York, New York 10007 Re: Gebrial Rasmy v. Marriot International, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-4865-AJN-OTW Motion to Adjourn April 11, 2022 Trial Date Your Honor: Defendants submit this concise letter-motion to respectfully request this Court adjourn the trial date due to Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. On January 19, 2022, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint because of, among other reasons, his violation of this Court’s September 14, 2021 Order compelling him to appear for a deposition. (Doc. 218). In the alternative to dismissal, Defendants requested this Court compel Plaintiff to appear for his deposition, hold him in contempt for his ongoing violation of the Court’s September 14" Order, and adjourn the April 11, 2022 trial date. Plaintiffs response is due on February 16 and Defendants’ reply is due on March 2, 2022. (Doc. 220). The trial is currently set to commence on April 11, 2022, only five weeks after Defendants’ reply brief is due. If the case is not dismissed outright, this leaves an unreasonably short window for Defendants to depose Plaintiff and prepare for trial. (Doc. 217). A schedule may be modified for good cause and with the Court’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL), 2020 WL 6048158, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2020). “Whether good cause exists turns on the diligence of the moving party.” BPP Illinois, LLC v. Royal Bank of Scotland Grp. PLC, 859 F.3d 188, 195 (2d Cir. 2017); accord Elisens v. Cayuga Cty. Mental Health, No. 519CV01236LEKTWD, 2020 WL 8081938, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2020) (adjourning trial date to allow defendants to move to dismiss); United States v. Buie, No. 05 CR. 664 (RCC), 2006 WL 2585604, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2006) (adjourning conference until decision on pending motion to dismiss issued). As stated in Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 219), Plaintiffs abject refusal to appear for his deposition is grounds for dismissal. However, Defendants’ motion to dismiss will not be
www.fordharrison.com | www.iuslaboris.com
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan, U.S.D.J February 9, 2022
fully briefed until March 2, 2022, leaving less than one month before trial for the Court to adjudicate the motion. If the case proceeds, that respectfully leaves insufficient time to depose Plaintiff, receive the deposition transcript, and prepare for trial. Moreover, Defendants should not be forced to incur the expense, time, and burden of preparing for trial while their motion to dismiss is pending. See, e.g., Sower v. Chase Home Fin., L.L.C., No. 13-15274, 2015 WL 4276146, at *4 (E.D. Mich. July 14, 2015) (interests of justice requires adjournment of trial). Accordingly, Defendants respectfully move to adjourn the April 11, 2022 trial date to afford Defendants sufficient time to complete pending discovery and prepare for trial following adjudication of the pending motion to dismiss. At the time of this submission, all attempts to reach Mr. Rasmy for his position on this application were unsuccessful. Thank you in advance for the Court’s courtesy. Respectfully submitted, FORD & HARRISON LLP s/Mark A. Saloman MARK A. SALOMAN Partner MAS/mme The Court ORDERS Mr. Rasmy to submit a cc: Mr. Gebrial Rasmy, pro se (VIA ECF) lresponse to Defendants’ request, if any, by February 28, 2022. The Clerk's office is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Memo Endorsement to Mr. Rasmy and note the mailing WSACTIVELLP:12895808.1 on the public docket. So ORDERED. saya oli (A
20F2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rasmy v. Marriott International, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rasmy-v-marriott-international-inc-nysd-2022.