1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-6797 +1 212 698 3500 Main +1 212 698 3599 Fax www.dechert.com JAMES M. MCGUIRE December 15, 2013 james.mcguire@dechert.com +1 212 698 3658 Direct +1 212 698 0489 Fax VIA ECF Honorable Anil C. Singh Justice of the Supreme Court New York State Supreme Court Civil Branch, New York County 80 Centre Street, Room 314 New York, New York 10013 Re: Patrolmen s Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc. v. The City of New York and The Council of the City of New York, Index No. 653550/2013 Dear Justice Singh: We represent the Patrolmen s Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc. ( PBA ) in the above-captioned matter. Because the parties have been unable to reach agreement on the scheduling of a variety of matters, we write Your Honor to request that the schedule outlined below be so-ordered by the Court. By way of background, the PBA filed a Complaint against the Council of the City of New York ( Council ) on October 15, 2013, which was later amended to add the City of New York ( City ) as a Defendant on October 28, 2013. Neither Defendant has yet answered or otherwise responded to the Complaint. On November 13, 2013, the parties entered into a stipulation setting forth a schedule under which Defendants were to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by December 13, 2013. (Please see attached Exhibit A, Stipulation dated November 13, 2013 (the Stipulation ).) On November 26, 2013, just after the effective date of the new law, the PBA filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the enforcement of Local Law 71 for the Year 2013 of the City of New York (the Preliminary Injunction ). On November 27, 2013 all parties met in Your Honor s chambers, during which time the parties indicated that they believed they would be able to work out a briefing schedule with regard to the Preliminary Injunction. Since the evening of November 27 th, the parties have been attempting, through numerous email exchanges and telephone conversations, 15112258.1.LITIGATION US Austin Boston Charlotte Hartford Los Angeles New York Orange County Philadelphia Princeton San Francisco Silicon Valley Washington DC EUROPE Brussels Dublin Frankfurt London Luxembourg Moscow Munich Paris ASIA Beijing Hong Kong
Honorable Anil C. Singh Justice of the Supreme Court December 15, 2013 Page 2 to reach agreement on a schedule with regard to both the Preliminary Injunction and Defendants answers to the PBA s Complaint. After many communications and much back and forth, on December 13, 2013 the PBA sent the below schedule to Defendants. The PBA believes the below schedule to be fair to all parties. First, it accommodates the City s request to have until January 16, 2014 to answer or otherwise respond to the PBA s Complaint and the Preliminary Injunction (the City s request to have until January 16 th is also the reason why the return date is now set for February rather than January 31 st, so as to allow adequate time for opposition and reply papers to be filed). Second, the below schedule accommodates the Council s post-stipulation request to have until December 19, 2013 to answer or otherwise respond to the PBA s Complaint December 19 th being the date the Council itself recently asked this Court to so-order (see Exhibit B, letter from Council to Court dated December 9, 2013, requesting that its time to answer or otherwise respond to PBA s Complaint be set for December 19, 2013), and which the Council firmly held until suddenly demanding, at the end of last week, that it be permitted to file a Motion to Dismiss in January. Indeed, the PBA s below schedule adds eight days to the Council s long-requested date of December 19 th. The Council has rejected the below schedule, and the PBA believes the parties to be at impasse on the issue of scheduling. The PBA requests that the Court so-order the below schedule circulated to the parties by the PBA on December 13, 2013, or implement such other schedule as the Court deems just and appropriate. We also note for the Court s reference that the Sergeant s Benevolent Association, Intervenor-Plaintiff in the matter The Mayor of the City of New York v. The Council of the City of New York, Index No. 451543/2013 ( Mayor v. Council Litigation ), has agreed to the below schedule for the Mayor v. Council Litigation. It is the PBA s understanding that the Council has also rejected this schedule with regard to the Mayor v. Council Litigation.
Honorable Anil C. Singh Justice of the Supreme Court December 15, 2013 Page 3 PBA s Proposed Schedule Circulated on December 13, 2013 12/27: Final Date for Council to Answer or Otherwise Respond to PBA Complaint 1/10: Final Date for Council to Oppose Preliminary Injunction 1/16: Final Date for City to Answer or Otherwise Respond to PBA Complaint 1/16: Final Date for City to Oppose Preliminary Injunction 2/6: Final Date for PBA to Oppose Council s Motion to Dismiss 2/6: Final Date for PBA to Oppose City s Motion to Dismiss 2/13: Final Date for Council to Reply to PBA s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 2/13: Final Date for PBA to Reply to Council s Opposition to Preliminary Injunction 2/13: Final Date for PBA to Reply to City s Opposition to Preliminary Injunction 2/13: Final Date for City to Reply to PBA s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 2/18: Return Date
Honorable Anil C. Singh Justice of the Supreme Court December 15, 2013 Page 4 We thank Your Honor for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, /s/ James M. McGuire James M. McGuire cc: All Counsel of Record (via electronic filing and email) Tony Coles, Esq. (via email) 15112258.1.LITIGATION