Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 14, 2025

Riley v. Lovepop, Inc.

Judge
Garnett
Docket
1:25-cv-00189
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureADA / Disability
In one sentence

In Riley v. Lovepop, Judge Garnett ordered the parties to pursue settlement, discuss standing and website issues, and submit a joint letter.

Who this affects

Amanie Riley, Lovepop, Inc., and the parties’ counsel are affected by the settlement, reporting, and response deadlines.

What happened

In Riley v. Lovepop, Inc., Amanie Riley sued Lovepop, Inc. on behalf of herself and others in a similar situation. The order concerns a case involving the accessibility of Lovepop’s website under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The court ordered the parties to meet for at least one hour within 30 days after Lovepop receives the summons and complaint. They must discuss settlement, whether Riley has legal standing to sue, and whether the website is a standalone website that qualifies as a public accommodation. If they do not settle, they must consider mediation or a settlement conference and submit a joint letter within 45 days after service.

Judge Margaret M. Garnett also paused Lovepop’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond until the joint letter is filed. The order does not decide standing, whether the website is covered by the disability law, or the merits of the lawsuit.

The detailed version

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

Case
Riley v. Lovepop, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-00189
Judge
Garnett
Date
Jan. 14, 2025

Background

Amanie Riley brought this action on behalf of herself and others described as similarly situated against Lovepop, Inc. The order discusses issues concerning the website involved in the action and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal law addressing access to places of public accommodation for people with disabilities.

Settlement and Issues to Discuss

The court ordered the parties to meet and confer—that is, meet and discuss the case—in a good-faith effort to settle. The meeting must last at least one hour and must occur within 30 days after Lovepop is served with the summons and complaint.

The parties must discuss whether Riley has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning a sufficient legal connection to bring the lawsuit. They must also discuss whether the website is a “standalone website,” which the order describes as a business website without a physical location, and whether such a website is a “place of public accommodation” under Title III. The order cites decisions from the Southern District of New York addressing those issues but does not resolve them in this case.

If the parties cannot settle on their own, they must discuss whether additional settlement efforts through the court’s mediation program or before a magistrate judge would be productive.

Deadlines and Further Proceedings

Within 15 additional days—45 days after service—the parties must file a joint letter stating whether they settled. If they did not settle, the letter must ask the court either to refer the case to mediation or a magistrate judge for a settlement conference, while stating which option the parties prefer, or to proceed with an initial status conference. The letter must also state whether Lovepop intends to answer the complaint or move to dismiss it. If Lovepop plans to seek dismissal, it must briefly describe the basis for that anticipated motion in no more than one paragraph.

Lovepop’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is stayed, meaning paused, until the joint letter is submitted. After the letter is filed, the court will set a deadline for Lovepop to answer or establish a schedule for briefing a motion to dismiss.

Ruling

Judge Margaret M. Garnett ordered the settlement meeting, the joint-letter filing, and the stay of Lovepop’s response deadline. The order did not rule on standing, whether the website qualifies as a place of public accommodation, or the merits of Riley’s claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.