Agostini v. Chenoa Corp.
- Garnett
- 1:24-cv-05145
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Lunique Agostino v. Chenoa Corp.: Judge Garnett ordered settlement discussions and paused Chenoa’s response deadline without deciding the case.
Lunique Agostino, Chenoa Corp., and counsel who had appeared or were required to receive notice were affected by the settlement, reporting, response-deadline, and service requirements.
What happened
In Lunique Agostino v. Chenoa Corp., the court ordered the parties to meet for at least one hour within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint, and to try in good faith to settle the case. They were told to discuss whether Lunique Agostino had satisfied the basic requirement of standing.
If the parties did not settle, they had to file a joint letter within 15 additional days stating whether they wanted mediation, a settlement conference before a magistrate judge, or an initial status conference. The letter also had to state whether Chenoa Corp. planned to answer or file a motion to dismiss.
The deadline for Chenoa Corp. to answer or otherwise respond was paused while the parties completed this process. Judge Margaret M. Garnett did not decide standing or any other issue in the case.
The detailed version
- Agostini v. Chenoa Corp. · No. 1:24-cv-05145
- Garnett
- July 12, 2024
Order and case status
This is a case-management order, not a decision on the merits. The court ordered the parties to meet and confer for at least one hour within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint on Chenoa Corp. The parties must make a good-faith effort to settle the action.
Standing discussion
The court directed the parties to consider whether Lunique Agostino had satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning the legal requirement that a person have a sufficient connection to the dispute to invoke the court’s authority. The order cited Second Circuit decisions concerning standing, but it did not decide whether standing existed.
Further settlement steps
If the parties could not settle the case themselves, they also had to discuss whether further settlement discussions through the court’s mediation program or before a magistrate judge would be productive. Within 15 additional days—45 days after service of the summons and complaint—the parties had to submit a joint letter stating whether they had settled. If they had not settled, the letter had to request either referral to mediation or a settlement conference before a magistrate judge, with a preference between those options, or an initial status conference.
The joint letter also had to state whether Chenoa Corp. intended to answer the complaint or move to dismiss it. If Chenoa Corp. intended to file a motion to dismiss, the letter had to briefly describe the anticipated basis for that motion in no more than one paragraph.
Response deadline and notice requirements
The deadline for Chenoa Corp. to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint was stayed, meaning paused, until the joint letter was submitted. After the letter was filed, the court would set either a deadline for Chenoa Corp. to answer or a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss.
Counsel who had appeared by the date of the order were directed to serve the order and Judge Garnett’s Individual Rules and Practices on counsel or parties who had not appeared, and to file proof of that notice with the court.
Disposition
The court ordered the settlement and reporting procedures described above and stayed Chenoa Corp.’s response deadline. It did not grant or deny a motion, dismiss any claim, or resolve standing or the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.