Norris v. The Headless Widow LLC et al

Filing 7

ORDER This case has been assigned to me for all purposes. It is hereby: ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days of service of the summons and complaint, the parties must meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith attempt to settle this action. In their discussions, the parties should consider whether plaintiff has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing. See, e.g., Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd., 36 F.4th 68, 77-78 (2d Cir. 2022); Harty v. W. Point Realty, Inc., 28 F.4th 435, 443-44 (2d Cir. 2022). To the extent the parties are unable to settle the case themselves, they must also discuss whether further settlement discussions through the district's court-annexed mediation program or before a magistrate judge would be productive at this time. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fifteen (15) additional days (i.e., within forty-five (45) days of service of the summons and complaint), the parties must submit a joint letter informing the Court whether the parties have settled. If the parties do not reach a settlement, the parties shall in the joint letter request that the Court (1) refer the case to mediation or a magistrate judge for a settlement conference (and indicate a preference between the two options), or (2) proceed with an initial status conference. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Rochon on 1/17/2023) (jca)

Case 1:23-cv-00306-JLR Document 7 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NAMEL NORRIS,
Plaintiff,
23-cv-00306 (JLR)

-againstTHE HEADLESS WIDOW LLC, et al.,

ORDER

Defendants.

JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge:
This case has been assigned to me for all purposes. It is hereby:
ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days of service of the summons and complaint, the
parties must meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith attempt to settle this action. In
their discussions, the parties should consider whether plaintiff has satisfied the threshold
requirement of standing. See, e.g., Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd., 36 F.4th 68, 77–78 (2d
Cir. 2022); Harty v. W. Point Realty, Inc., 28 F.4th 435, 443–44 (2d Cir. 2022). To the extent
the parties are unable to settle the case themselves, they must also discuss whether further
settlement discussions through the district’s court-annexed mediation program or before a
magistrate judge would be productive at this time.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fifteen (15) additional days (i.e., within fortyfive (45) days of service of the summons and complaint), the parties must submit a joint letter
informing the Court whether the parties have settled. If the parties do not reach a settlement, the
parties shall in the joint letter request that the Court (1) refer the case to mediation or a
magistrate judge for a settlement conference (and indicate a preference between the two options),
or (2) proceed with an initial status conference.
Dated: January 17, 2023
New York, New York
SO ORDERED.

JENNIFER L. ROCHON
United States District Judge