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 ac tion. 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 par ties 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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?