Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 21, 2025

Zhang v. Alpha I Marketing Corp.

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:25-cv-00500
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Zhang v. Alpha I Marketing, Judge Rochon ordered settlement discussions and a joint status letter without deciding the case’s merits.

Who this affects

Andrew Zhang and Alpha I Marketing Corp.; the order also concerns the persons Zhang seeks to represent as similarly situated plaintiffs.

What happened

Zhang v. Alpha I Marketing Corp. is a procedural order directing the parties to begin settlement-related discussions. The opinion does not decide the claims or determine whether the plaintiff has standing.

Within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint, the parties must meet for at least one hour and make a good-faith attempt to settle. They must also discuss whether the plaintiff meets the requirement of standing and whether additional settlement discussions through mediation or a magistrate judge would be useful.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered the parties to submit a joint letter within 15 more days, or 45 days after service. If they have not settled, the letter must request mediation, a settlement conference before a magistrate judge, or an initial status conference.

The detailed version

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

Case
Zhang v. Alpha I Marketing Corp. · No. 1:25-cv-00500
Judge
Rochon
Date
Jan. 21, 2025

Nature of the Order

This is a case-management and settlement order. The court did not rule on the merits of the claims, decide whether the case may proceed as a class action, or decide whether Andrew Zhang has standing. The court directed the parties to consider the standing issue during their discussions.

Required Discussions

Within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint, the parties must meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith effort to settle the action. They must consider whether the plaintiff has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing. The court cited Calcano v. Swarovski North America Ltd. and Harty v. West Point Realty, Inc. in connection with that issue.

If the parties cannot 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 that time.

Joint Letter and Next Step

Within 15 additional days—meaning within 45 days after service of the summons and complaint—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 to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference, while stating a preference between those options, or to proceed with an initial status conference.

Disposition

The court entered these settlement and case-management directives. The order does not resolve any underlying legal claim.

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.