Letter motion for injunction pending appeal (Nov. 13, 2020) — Agudath Israel v. Cuomo (2d Cir.)

Summary

A two-page letter motion, Document 22, filed 11/13/20 in Agudath Israel of America, et al. v. Andrew M. Cuomo, No. 1:20-cv-04834-KAM-RML, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, addressed to Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto. Plaintiffs' counsel Avi Schick of Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP recounts that the complaint of October 8, 2020 sought to enjoin New York Executive Order No. 202.68, that the Court denied the TRO and preliminary injunction motion on October 9, and that plaintiffs appealed on October 19. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)(C), plaintiffs move for an injunction pending appeal and ask for a ruling by the close of business that day. The letter states that counsel for Defendant opposes the request, and it is signed s/ Avi Schick.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP 
875 Third Avenue 
New York, New York  10022 
troutman.com 
Avi Schick 
avi.schick@troutman.com 
November 13, 2020 
VIA ECF 
The Honorable Kiyo A. Matsumoto 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York  
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, NY  11201 
Re: 
Agudath Israel of America, et al. v. Andrew M. Cuomo, No. 1:20-cv-4834 (E.D.N.Y.)
Dear Judge Matsumoto: 
We represent Plaintiffs in the above-referenced case.  On October 8, 2020, Plaintiffs filed 
a complaint asking this Court to enjoin Defendant from enforcing New York Executive Order 
No. 202.68 (the “Order”) and to declare the Order unconstitutional because it violates Plaintiffs’ 
Free Exercise rights.  Dkt. 1.  That same day, Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining 
order and preliminary injunction, Dkt. 2, which the Court denied on October 9, Tr. 66.  On 
October 19, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from that denial.  Dkt. 16. 
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) and Federal Rule of Appellate 
Procedure 8(a)(1)(C), Plaintiffs hereby move this Court for an injunction pending appeal of its 
order denying preliminary injunctive relief.  In support of their request, Plaintiffs rely on the 
arguments stated in their motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and 
accompanying documents, Dkt 2, as well as at the October 9 hearing.  Plaintiffs acknowledge the 
prior rulings by this Court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied their request 
for an injunction pending appeal.  In light of those rulings, Plaintiffs respectfully request this 
Court’s ruling on this request for an injunction pending appeal by the close of business today.     
Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to accept this submission as Plaintiffs’ letter motion 
for an injunction pending appeal, and to enter an expedited ruling based on the parties’ prior 
submissions and the prior rulings in this matter.  Pursuant to Local Rule 37.3, we have met and 
conferred with counsel for Defendant, who opposes the request for an injunction pending appeal.  
Case 1:20-cv-04834-KAM-RML   Document 22   Filed 11/13/20   Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 727

Hon. Kiyo A. Matsumoto 
November 13, 2020 
Page 2
Respectfully, 
s/ Avi Schick  
Avi Schick 
Cc: Counsel for Defendant (via ECF) 
Case 1:20-cv-04834-KAM-RML   Document 22   Filed 11/13/20   Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 728

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nyed.454069.22.0.pdf

Size

112,088 bytes

SHA-256

8bbfaaa893f2c45f6d0931c917571ba8d3b181e3207e6db5aae2127fa71e35eb

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nyed.454069.22.0.pdf

Original

archive.org