Direct Dial: +1,858.523.3912 San Diego, California 92130 [email protected] Tel: +1.858.523.5400 Fax: +1.858.523.5450 www.lw.com AT H A M aWAT K | N S LLP sets ee en Beijing Munich MEMO ENDORSED Boston New York Brussels Orange County Century City Paris March 14, 2025 Chicago Riyadh Dubai San Diego Dusseldorf San Francisco VIA ECF ECF Frankfurt Seoul Hamburg Silicon Valley The Honorable Dale E. Ho HongKong Singapore United States District Judge a a Southern District of New York Los Angeles Wecnin gten, D.C. 40 Foley Square Madrid New York, NY 10007

Re: Cedar Communities At Staunton I, LLC, d/b/a Birch Gardens v. A Place For Mom, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-09737 (DEH) Dear Judge Ho, We write pursuant to Section 2(e) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases. We represent Defendant A Place for Mom, Inc. (“APFM”) in the above-referenced matter and write jointly with counsel for Plaintiff to respectfully request that the March 20, 2025 deadline for the submission of the joint letter and case management plan, as well as the March 27, 2025 initial pretrial conference, be adjourned, and that discovery be stayed pending Your Honor’s decision on APFM’s forthcoming motion to dismiss. The Parties respectfully submit that further determination of the overarching case schedule in this matter should be deferred pending resolution of APFM’s forthcoming motion to dismiss, which is due March 17, 2025. Although filing a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery, district courts may stay discovery “for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Further, district courts have “considerable discretion to stay discovery.” Ema Fin., LLC v. Vystar Corp.,

, 79 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). “In deciding whether to grant a stay, ‘a court should consider the breadth of discovery sought and the burden of responding to it, as well as the strength of the underlying motion.’” Boelter v. Hearst Commc’ns, Inc., No. 15 Civ. 03934 (AT),

, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2016). Courts recognize that in class actions, like this case, discovery can be particularly “expensive [and] burdensome.” Toth v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., No. 21-CV- 4245 (AMD) (JAM),

, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 26, 2024). The Parties agree that it will be more efficient for the motion to dismiss to be heard and decided, before the parties engage in discovery, with the pleadings in flux. Engaging in discovery before this uncertainty is resolved may prove unnecessarily burdensome and costly on both Parties and may waste judicial resources. Further, no discovery is pending, and because Plaintiff has agreed to stay discovery until the motion to dismiss is decided, there is no prejudice to Plaintiff if a stay is granted. Finally, APFM believes it has strong arguments in support of its forthcoming

Page 2

motion to dismiss, which may result in some or all of the claims being dismissed. Further, the forthcoming motion to dismiss will include a challenge to Plaintiff’s standing to bring its New York General Business Law claims, which APFM submits weighs further in favor of a stay. See Renois v. WVMF Funding, LLC, No. 20-CV-09281 (LTS) (DF),

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2021) (granting stay where motion to dismiss was “colorable and raise[d] threshold challenges to . . . Plaintiffs standing to bring suit.”). In light of these considerations, the Parties respectfully request that the Court adjourn the upcoming March 20, 2025 joint letter deadline, adjourn the upcoming March 27, 2025 initial pretrial conference, and stay discovery pending its decision on APFM’s forthcoming motion to dismiss. Because the Parties submit that the initial pretrial conference should be rescheduled following this Court’s ruling on APFM’s forthcoming motion to dismiss, the date for which is undetermined, the Parties have not proposed alternative conference dates (cf Individual Rules, Section 2(e)(v)); however, the Parties will make themselves available at the Court’s convenience and/or are amenable to submitting a further joint letter regarding alternative dates following the Court’s ruling. There have been no previous requests on these issues. We thank the Court for its consideration of this request. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jennifer L. Barry Jennifer L. Barry (pro hac vice) of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

ce: All Counsel of Record (via ECF) is hereby ORDERED that the parties’ request for a stay of discovery pending resolution of Defendant's motion is GRANTED. District courts may stay discovery during the pendency of a motion to dismiss “for good Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “In deciding whether to grant a stay, a court should consider the breadth of discove and the burden of responding to it, as well as the strength of the underlying motion.” Boelter v. Hearst Inc., No. 15 Civ. 3934,

, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2016) (internal quotation marks The Court expresses no views as to the merits of Defendant's motion, but an initial review of the argum in support suggest that the motion is not frivolous. The motion also raises threshold issues, such as whe has standing to bring certain claims. Moreover, both parties consent to the stay, and Plaintiff does not any prejudice that will result from delaying discovery. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the in conference and the deadline for the submission of the joint letter and case management plan are sine dine. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate ECF No. 24. SO ORDERED.

A E. Ho States District Judge