Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 7, 2025

Norris v. Butter Inc

Judge
Garnett
Docket
1:25-cv-01099
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Norris v. Butter Inc., Judge Garnett ordered the parties to pursue settlement discussions, report their status, and postponed defendants’ response deadline.

Who this affects

Namel Norris, Butter Inc. d/b/a Butter Smashburgers NYC, Jerome J. Nash, and counsel who have appeared in the case.

What happened

In Norris v. Butter Inc., the court issued a case-management order after Namel Norris sued Butter Inc., doing business as Butter Smashburgers NYC, and Jerome J. Nash. The order did not decide the claims.

The parties must meet for at least one hour within 30 days after each defendant is served, discuss settlement, and consider whether Norris has legal standing to bring the case. Within 15 more days, they must jointly tell the court whether they settled and, if not, request mediation, a settlement conference with a magistrate judge, or an initial status conference.

The court paused the defendants’ deadline to answer or otherwise respond until the joint letter is filed. Judge Margaret M. Garnett also directed appearing counsel to serve the order and the court’s rules on counsel or parties who had not yet appeared.

The detailed version

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

Case
Norris v. Butter Inc · No. 1:25-cv-01099
Judge
Garnett
Date
Feb. 7, 2025

Order

The court ordered the parties to meet and confer—meaning discuss the case directly—for at least one hour within 30 days after each defendant is served with the summons and complaint. They must make a good-faith attempt to settle the action. During those discussions, they should consider whether the plaintiff has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, which concerns whether the plaintiff is legally entitled to bring the case.

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

Required Joint Letter

Within 15 additional days, for a total of 45 days after service of the summons and complaint, the parties must submit a joint letter telling the court whether they settled. If they did not settle, the letter must request either referral to mediation or a settlement conference before a magistrate judge, with a preference stated between those options, or an initial status conference.

The letter must also state whether the defendants intend to answer the complaint or move to dismiss it. If they anticipate filing a motion to dismiss, they must briefly describe the basis for that anticipated motion in no more than one paragraph.

Response Deadline and Notice Requirements

The deadline for the defendants 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 either a deadline for the defendants to answer or a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss.

Counsel who had appeared when the order was issued must promptly serve the order and Judge Garnett’s Individual Rules and Practices on counsel for all other parties who had not appeared, and must file proof of that notice with the court. If counsel does not know the identity of another party’s counsel, counsel must send the materials directly to that party.

Disposition

This is a procedural case-management order. It sets settlement, reporting, and response procedures and does not resolve the plaintiff’s claims, the standing issue, or any anticipated motion to dismiss.

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.