Sullivan v. Gelb

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: August 14, 2023
• Docket: 1:23-cv-05194
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

COHEN USDC SDNY WE ] S S DOCUMENT Ao ELECTRONICALLY FILED . DOC #: SIMON DATE FILED: 8/14/2023

900 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 * New York, NY 10022-4869 Olivia R. Singer Attorney August 14,2023, 212-356-0206 f 646.473.8206 osinger@cwsny.com www.cwsny.com By Electronic Case Filing The Honorable Gregory H. Woods United States District Court Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St., Courtroom 12C New York, NY 10007 Re: Sullivan y. Gelb, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05194-GHW Dear Judge Woods: This firm represents Defendant Samuel Wheeler (“Wheeler”) in this action. We write with the consent of Defendants Peter Gelb, Marcia Sells, and Stephanie Basta (collectively, with Wheeler, “Defendants”) and of Plaintiff Mark Sullivan (“Plaintiff”) to respectfully and jointly request that the Court enter a stay of discovery pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss and Plaintiff’s motion to remand. See Docket Nos. 37, 40, 43. This action arises out of the termination of the Plaintiff's employment with the Metropolitan Opera on August 1, 2022. Compl. □□ 28-29. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in state court on May 17, 2023. Defendants removed this action to federal court on June 20, 2023. See Docket No. 1. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand on August 11, 2023. Docket No. 37. That same day, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Docket Nos. 40, 43. Courts may stay discovery upon a showing of good cause. /ntegrated Sys. & Power, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., No. 09-CV-5874 (RPP), 2009 WL 2777076, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2009); see also Order, Kelley v. Morning Bee, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-08420 (GHW) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2022), ECF No. 25. In determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts consider: (1) whether the defendant has made “substantial arguments” in favor of dismissal; (2) the breadth of discovery sought; and (3) any prejudice that would result. Ema Fin., LLC v. Vystar Corp., 336 F.R.D. 75, 79 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). The facts here weigh in favor of a stay. Defendants’ arguments for dismissal rely on the well-established federal labor law of preemption and are, therefore, “potentially dispositive” and “not unfounded in the law.” Gandler v. Nazaroyv, No. 94 Civ. 2272, 1994 WL 702004, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 1994); see Docket Nos. 42, 44 (memoranda of law in support of motions to

COHEN WEISS SIMON LLP August 14, 2023 Page 2

dismiss). If successful, Defendants’ motions could result in dismissal of the Complaint in its entirety. On the other hand, if Plaintiff prevails on his motion to remand, the case will return to state court where different procedural rules govern the scope and breadth of discovery, requiring the parties to remitiate any already proffered discovery requests. The parties seek this stay to conserve resources and avoid the possibility of duplicative discovery. Since all parties join in and consent to this request, there is no prejudice. We respectfully request that the Court grant this request, and we thank the Court for its consideration. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Olivia R. Singer Olivia R. Singer COHEN, WEISS AND SIMON LLP 900 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 356-0206 Facsimile: (646) 473-08206 osinger@cwsny.com Attorney for Defendant Samuel Wheeler

CC: = Mark Sullivan, Plaintiff Howard Robbins, Counsel to Peter Gelb, Marcia Sells, and Stephanie Basta

Application granted. The Court finds good cause, pursuant to Federal Rule of Crvil Procedure 26(c), to stay discovery pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss and Plaintiff's motion to remand. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 47. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 14, 2023 Jahn Loved GREG . WOODS New York, New York United States District Judge