Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 11, 2024

Riley v. St. John Knits, Inc.

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:24-cv-03446
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Riley v. St. John Knits, Inc., Judge Tarnofsky ordered settlement discussions and a joint status letter without deciding the case’s merits.

Who this affects

Amanie Riley, the putative class members, and St. John Knits, Inc., because the order required the parties to engage in settlement discussions and report their status to the court.

What happened

Riley v. St. John Knits, Inc. is an action brought by Amanie Riley on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against St. John Knits, Inc.

The court ordered the parties to meet for at least one hour by July 5, 2024, and to discuss settlement, including whether Riley meets the threshold requirement of having standing to sue. If they could not settle, they also had to discuss mediation or a settlement conference. By July 24, 2024, the parties had to submit a joint letter reporting whether they settled and, if not, requesting mediation, a settlement conference, or an initial case-management conference.

Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky issued this procedural order. It did not decide standing, liability, or any other merits issue.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Riley v. St. John Knits, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-03446
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
June 11, 2024

Background

Amanie Riley filed this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against St. John Knits, Inc. The opinion is a settlement-related order and does not describe the underlying claims.

Order

The court ordered the parties to meet and confer for at least one hour by July 5, 2024, in a good-faith attempt to settle the action. Their discussions were required to include whether Riley had satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning the legal requirement that a plaintiff be entitled to ask a court to decide the dispute. The parties also had to consider whether additional settlement discussions through the court’s mediation program or before the magistrate judge would be productive if they could not settle themselves.

By July 24, 2024, the parties had to submit a joint letter stating whether they had settled. If they had not, the letter had to request one of three next steps: referral to mediation, a date for a settlement conference, or an initial case-management conference.

Disposition and Classification

The court entered a procedural settlement order. It did not rule on standing, the merits of the claims, or the parties’ ultimate rights. Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky signed the order as the United States magistrate judge.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.