Griffoul v. Bridge Metaverse, LLC

666 Old Country Road LAW OFFICE OF Office: 516-683-000] Suite 700 Cell: 516-459-4068 Garden City, NY 11530 Me M ARK E ° Fax: 516-228-0383 [email protected] in New York and Massachusetts | G () | LD E L L goidell.com January 29, 2025 wake eet G. Schofield Plaintiffs shall file a response to on. Lorna G. Schofie Defendants’ letter by Feb 7, 2025.

United States District Judge erencanrs vemer oy reoruary United States District Court Dated: January 30, 2025 □ Southern District of New York New York. New York Pearl Street Ew Mork, New Tor LORNA G. SCHOFIEL: New York, New York 10007 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Re: —Griffoul v. Bridge Metaverse, LLC d/b/a Cached, et al.

Case No. 1:24-cv-07540-LGS Dear Judge Scholfield, This office represents the defendant Michael Packman (“Packman”) in the above- referenced matter and submits this letter motion to request a stay of discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) pending the decision on the motion to dismiss. The procedural vehicle of a letter- motion for a stay of discovery is expressly authorized by Rule 7.1(e) of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York (“Applications for extensions or adjournments, applications for a pre-motion conference, and similar non- dispositive matters may be brought by letter-motion.”). See, e.g. Cuhadar v. Savoya LLC, No. 24-cv-3615, 2024 WL 4142151, at *1 (E.D.N-Y. Sept. 11, 2024) (granting in part and denying in part letter motion for stay of discovery pending motion to dismiss).

A stay of discovery is also requested because the co-defendant was only recently served and no attorney has yet filed an answer or appeared on his behalf. His time to answer was extended by plaintiff's counsel. Additionally, plaintiff has not filed or served their Initial Disclosures, in violation of the Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order of this Court dated December 5, 2024 (“Scheduling Order’) [ECF 25].

Procedural History Plaintiff commenced this action on October 4, 2024 by filing the Complaint. [ECF 1].

The Complaint alleged statutory claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seg., and the New York Labor Law, as well as common law claims under New York law.

On November 4, 2024, Packman filed a pre-motion letter regarding his intent to move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). [ECF 12]. Thereafter, on November 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, [ECF 15], which alleges statutory and common law claims only under New York law.! Plaintiffs withdrew their claims under the FLSA.