Feliz v. IHealth Labs Inc.

Filing 5

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 p arties 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 1/18/2023) (jca)

Case 1:23-cv-00354-JLR Document 5 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ROBERTA FELIZ, Individually, and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,

23-cv-00354 (JLR)

-against-

ORDER

IHEALTH LABS INC.,
Defendant.

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 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.
Dated: January 18, 2023
New York, New York

SO ORDERED.

JENNIFER L. ROCHON
United States District Judge