Yovanny Dominguez v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.

500 East Pratt Street Suite 1000 Baltimore MD 21202 Phone: 410.659.4400 Fax: 410,659,4599 www.mcguirewoods.com Adam T. Simons asimons @mcguirewoods.

Direct: 410.659.4417 McGUIREWOODS Fax: □□□□□□□□ February 26, 2020 VIA ECF Hon. Paul G. Gardephe United States District Judge Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse Foley Square, Room 2204 New York, NY 10007 Re: Dominguez v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc., Case 1:19-cv-10343-PGG-SLC Joint Request to Stay Initial Conference and Discovery Deadlines Dear Judge Gardephe: Plaintiff Yovanny Dominguez and Defendant Lowe’s Companies, Inc. respectfully request that the Court stay any initial case management conference date and discovery deadlines in this matter until after Plaintiff files his contemplated Amended Complaint, and Defendant’s anticipated motion to dismiss is decided.

On February 24, 2020, Defendant filed its pre-motion conference letter setting forth its contemplated arguments for the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims. On February 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed his response, in which he requested a period of fourteen days to file an Amended Complaint to substitute the correct corporate entity as the defendant, Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC (“Lowe’s Home Centers”). Lowe’s Home Centers anticipates that it will move to dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint.

The parties have conferred and agree that staying any initial case management conference and discovery deadlines until the resolution of Defendant’s anticipated pre-answer motion is in the parties’ best interests, as it will allow for the parties to avoid the time and expense of discovery until the Court reaches a decision on whether and to what extent the case will proceed. Further, there are no current deadlines set in this matter, and a stay of these deadlines will prejudice neither party.

Accordingly, the parties request that the Court stay any initial case management conference date and discovery deadlines until Defendant’s motion to dismiss is decided.

Atlanta | Austin | Baltimore | Charlotte | Charlottesville | Chicago | Dallas | Houston | Jacksonville | London | Los Angeles - Century City Los Angeles - Downtown | New York | Norfolk | Pittsburgh | Raleigh | Richmond | San Francisco | Tysons | Washington, D.C. A epee February 26, 2020 Page 2 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Adam T. Simons Adam T. Simons McGuireWoods LLP Attorneys for Defendant CONSENTED TO BY: /S/ Bradly Marks (with permission) Bradly Marks The Marks Law Firm, P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiff should be addressed accordingly. joint Letter-Motion to stay any initial case management conference date and discovery deadlines until motion to dismiss is decided (ECF No. 12) is DENIED. "A motion to dismiss does not automatically stay ery, except in cases covered by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.” Hong Leong Fin. Ltd. (Singapore) \ Performance Ltd., 297 F.R.D. 69, 72 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). Courts do not routinely stay discovery “simply on the bz motion to dismiss has been filed.” Moran v. Flaherty, No. 92 Civ. 3200 (PKL), 1992 WL 276913, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. □ Mirra v. Jordan, No. 15 Civ. 4100 (AT) (KNF), 2016 WL 889559, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2016) (“The pendenc itive motion is not, in itself, an automatic ground for a stay.”) (internal citation omitted). The Clerk of Court is directed to close ECF No. 12.

2/26/2020 ~ ‘4 ; ph X / CU. i— =~ | VARA L. CAYE ~United States Magistrate Judge