Edward Y. Kroub-— Partner Ww M | R A |_| | 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10281 P: (212) 595-6200 | F: (212) 595-9700 M4 K 2 C) LJ KR | | [email protected] www.mizrahikroub.com November 24, 2021 VIA ECE The Honorable Valerie Caproni United States District Judge MEMO ENDORS Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT Re: Tavarez v. Hill to Grove, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cev-5700 (VEC) ELECTRONICALLY FI DOC #: Dear Judge Caproni: DATE FILED: 11/29/202 We now represent plaintiff Victoriano Tavarez (“Plaintiff”) in the above referenced action. Earlier today, Plaintiff sent notice to Mr. Mars Khaimov concerning the substitution of counsel. We respectfully write this letter-motion seeking a stay of this action for 14 days — including a stay sine die of the upcoming Initial Pretrial Conference currently set for December 3, 2021 — in order to permit a proper transition of counsel. Plaintiffhad retained this firm to represent him in this (and other) ADA action(s) and earlier today sent a letter notifying Mr. Khaimov about Plaintiff's desire to substitute counsel and terminate the attorney-client relationship with Mr. Khaimov. Given the recent substitution, we respectfully request a brief stay of 14 days in order to become fully briefed on this pending action, receive all materials from previous counsel, and develop a proper litigation approach, including exploring a potential resolution with opposing counsel. A district court’s power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, or counsel, and for litigants. See Bowes v. Am. Eagle Outfitters, Inc., 18-CV-9004 (VEC),

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2021) (citations omitted). In determining whether to grant a motion to stay, the Court considers factors including: (1) the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with the civil litigation as balanced against the prejudice to the plaintiffs if delayed; (2) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; (3) the interests of the courts; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest.

at *2-*3 (citations omitted). Here, these factors militate in favor of a brief stay. Prejudice to Plaintiff resulting from the change of counsel would be minimized by allowing time for incoming counsel to acclimate to the case and to discuss all aspects of this action, including potential resolution, with defense counsel. Second, a stay would not prejudice and may actually benefit Defendant, who has also been recently

MK fecssiue Hon. Valerie Caproni November 24, 2021 Page 2 retained, to adequately address issues, including developing a new schedule prior to the Initial Pretrial Conference. See Docket No. 10. Finally, there is no evidence that a stay will result in prejudice to any non-party or public interest. As such, to avoid prejudice to Plaintiff, and ensure that both Defendant and the Court can have outstanding concerns and issues addressed efficiently, promptly, and knowledgably, a stay is warranted. For these reasons, a stay of the case for two weeks, including a sine die stay of the upcoming Initial Pretrial Conference currently set for December 3, 2021, is merited. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Edward Y. Kroub EDWARD Y. KROUB ce: All Counsel of Record (via ECF)

Application DENIED. The initial pretrial conference currently scheduled for December 3, 2021 is ADJOURNED to January 7, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. The parties’ joint submission is due by December 30, 2021. The parties should appear for the conference by dialing 888-363-4749, using the access code 3121171 and the security code 5700.

SO ORDERED.

11/29/2021 HON. VALERIE CAPRONI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE