The letter summarizes arguments that could be made for dismissing a case involving several corporate defendants. It requests permission to file supplemental briefing arguing that dismissal remains warranted based on forum non conveniens even with greater deference to plaintiffs' choice of forum, as directed by the appeals court. It also notes there are additional grounds for dismissing some or all claims, such as failure to state a claim or satisfy pleading standards. For example, arbitration may be compelled for claims against Western Union by plaintiffs who agreed to arbitration terms for money transfers. The letter requests permission to file pre-motion letters on these other arguments.

1.
Andrew P. Fishkin
afishkin@fishkinlucks.com
April 13, 2022
Via CM/ECF
Hon. LaShann DeArcy Hall
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Re: Celestin v. Martelly, 18-cv-7340-LDH-PK
Dear Judge DeArcy Hall:
We represent defendant Western Union (named as “The Western Union Company, d/b/a Western
Union Holdings, Inc, Western Union Financial Services, Inc., and through other subsidiaries and
affiliates”). We write on behalf Western Union and on behalf of defendants Caribbean Air Mail,
Inc.; Unitransfer USA, Inc.; Unibank, S.A., and Unigestion Holding, S.A., dba Digicel Haiti
(collectively, the “Corporate Defendants”), in connection with the March 31, 2022 Order of the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which remanded the case for further proceedings before Your
Honor.
The Second Circuit “le[ft] it to the district court to decide the question” of forum non conveniens
“under the correct level of deference.” ECF No. 98 at 28. The Corporate Defendants believe that
even were the Court to grant greater deference to Plaintiffs’ choice of forum, the balance of the
forum non conveniens factors would still mandate dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims and dispose of
this case in its entirety. To that end, the Corporate Defendants would welcome the opportunity to
file supplemental briefing demonstrating why, even in light of the Second Circuit’s Order, dismissal
based on forum non conveniens remains warranted on the record before the Court.
In addition, as noted in the Corrected Memorandum and Order dismissing Plaintiffs’ Second
Amended Complaint, “the Court limited Defendants’ briefing to the act of state doctrine and forum
non conveniens without prejudice to Defendants to make a subsequent motion to dismiss on other
grounds, if necessary.” ECF No. 94 at 2 n.2. As stated, while the Corporate Defendants believe
that forum non conveniens mandates dismissal of this action, they note again that there exist
several additional grounds to dismiss one or more of Plaintiffs’ claims, including failure to satisfy
the pleading standards of FRCP (8)(a) and (9)(b) and failure to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6).
Moreover, at this time, one or more defendants may wish to assert additional, defendant-specific
grounds for dismissal. For example, the claims against Western Union brought by named
Plaintiffs who sent Western Union-branded money transfers should be stayed in favor of
arbitration, or arbitration should be compelled, based on the terms and conditions that governed
those money transfers. (Through those same terms and conditions, those same named plaintiffs
also waived any right to participate in a class action.) Western Union would be pleased to file a
pre-motion letter summarizing these arguments.
Case 1:18-cv-07340-LDH-PK Document 99 Filed 04/13/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1032

2. Hon. LaShann DeArcy Hall, U.S.D.J.
April 13, 2022
Page 2 of 2
We thank the Court for its consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Andrew P. Fishkin
Andrew P. Fishkin
cc: All Counsel of Record (Via CM/ECF)
Case 1:18-cv-07340-LDH-PK Document 99 Filed 04/13/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1033