Riley v. Barbour, Inc.

Background

Amaine Riley sued Barbour, Inc., on behalf of herself and others described in the caption as similarly situated. The order references claims involving Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal law addressing access to places of public accommodation. The opinion does not decide the merits of those claims.

Settlement and Issues for Discussion

The court ordered the parties to meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith effort to settle the action within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint on Barbour. During those discussions, the parties must consider whether Riley has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning a sufficient connection to the alleged legal injury to proceed in federal court.

The parties must also consider whether the website involved in the action is a “standalone website”—a business website without a physical location—and whether such a website is a “place of public accommodation” under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The order cites decisions from other courts in the Southern District of New York addressing that issue but does not resolve it here.

Further Procedure and Disposition

If the parties cannot settle, they must discuss whether additional settlement efforts through the court’s mediation program or before a magistrate judge would be productive. Within 15 additional days—45 days after service—the parties must submit a joint letter stating whether they settled. If they did not, the letter must 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 must also state whether Barbour intends to answer or move to dismiss the complaint. If Barbour intends to move to dismiss, it must briefly state the basis for the anticipated motion in no more than one paragraph. The deadline for Barbour to answer or otherwise respond is stayed pending the joint letter. After the letter is filed, the court will set either a deadline for the answer or a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss.

Counsel who had appeared when the order was issued must promptly provide the order and the judge’s individual rules to counsel who had not appeared, or directly to the party if counsel’s identity is unknown, and file proof of that notice. Judge Margaret M. Garnett issued this procedural order; it does not grant or deny a motion and does not decide standing, the website’s legal status, or the underlying disability-access claims.