ROBERT L. ARLEO, ESQ. P.C. 1345 Avenue of the Americas 33 Floor New York, N.Y. 10105 Telephone: (212) 551-1115 Fax: (518) 751-1801 Email: [email protected] www.robertarleo.com

August 18, 2021 Honorable Kenneth M. Karas United States District Judge The Hon. Charles L. Brient Jr. Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse M EM O E N DO RS E D 300 Quaroppas Street White Plains, New York 10601 Re: Singer v. Forster & Garbus, LLP. 21-cv-00121 (KMK) Dear District Judge Karas: I am counsel for the Defendant named in the above-entitled action. Please consider this letter to constitute Defendant’s opposition to the Plaintiff's letter motion to stay discovery pending a decision by District Judge Seibel regarding cross-motions for summary judgment in the FDCPA action entitled Kola v. Forster & Garbus, LLP. For the reasons set forth below the motion should be denied. Initially, I note that any decision issued by District Judge Seibel is not dispositive of the above-entitled action as any decision will not constitute binding precedent. Notwithstanding, District Judge Seibel has already stated that she believes that the resolution of these similar FDCPA actions will depend upon whether or not the consumer had both the ability and intent to pay the debt at issue. Judge Seibel recently so stated at the initial conference which occurred in the matter of Stoessel y. Forster & Garbus, LLP, 21-cv-04961. The Plaintiff's attorney in the above-entitled action was not present at the Stoesse/ initial conference so his belief as to the standard of proof Judge Seibel will apply in the Kola action is meaningless. As I agree with District Judge Seibel’s interpretation of the correct standard of proof to be applied to these similar cases the Plaintiff should be compelled to appear for a deposition so that I may obtain evidence to prove the Defendant’s contention that the Plaintiff had no ability and/or intent to pay when she received the letter. Furthermore, the Defendant should be able to explore whether or not the Plaintiff even read the letter which is the subject of the above-entitled action. A failure to read a debt collection letter deprives a consumer of Article III standing to prosecute an FDCPA action. Truckenbrodt v. CBE Group, Inc.,

, at *4-*7 (E.D.N.Y.).

I have been attempting to obtain a date for the Plaintiffs deposition for months. The Plaintiffs letter motion to stay discovery of the above-entitled action is simply an attempt to avoid appearing for a deposition.

Respectfully submitted, / s / Robert L. Arleo Robert L. Arleo RLA:gra All attorneys of record via ECF Forster & Garbus, LLP

Plaintiff's Application to stay discovery, (Dkt. No. 21), is denied. As Defendant notes, (Dkt. No. 2 Judge Seibel's decision in a similar case—even a highly similar case—will not bind this Court, a therefore will not be "dispositive" of any issue in this case. Moreover, Plaintiff's view as to the ba: on which Judge Seibel will resolve the motion in question is entirely speculative. Contrary Plaintiff's suggestion, even if Judge Seibel were to resolve the motion based on evidence regardi the plaintiff's intent or ability to pay, that would not require the court to make a credibil: determination that should appropriately be resolved at trial. Finally, as Defendant also points o1 whether Plaintiff actually reviewed the debt collection letter before filing this Action would determinative regarding Article III standing. See Truckenbrodt v. CBE Grp., Inc., No. □□□□□□□□□

, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2020) ("The only harm [the] [p]laintiff has alleged is th the challenged letter is misleading, but since he testified that he had not read the letter at the ti he filed this lawsuit, [the] [p]laintiff lacks Article III standing."). In sum, Plaintiff has failed persuade the Court that a stay of discovery is warranted. The Parties shall continue litigating tl case in accordance with the case management plan. nol yf KENNETHM, KARAS US.DJ. August 25, 2021