Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 13, 2025

Trippett v. Juniors Cheesecake, Inc.

Judge
Garnett
Docket
1:25-cv-01211
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureADA / Disability
In one sentence

In Trippett v. Junior’s Cheesecake, Judge Garnett ordered settlement talks and a joint status letter while staying Defendant’s response deadline.

Who this affects

Alfred Trippett, Junior’s Cheesecake, Inc., and their counsel are affected by the settlement, reporting, notice, and stayed-response requirements.

What happened

Trippett v. Junior’s Cheesecake, Inc. involves Alfred Trippett’s action against Junior’s Cheesecake, Inc., concerning a website and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The court ordered the parties to meet for at least one hour within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint and to discuss settlement, standing, and whether the website is a standalone website. If they cannot settle, they must discuss mediation or a settlement conference and file a joint letter within 45 days after service.

Judge Margaret M. Garnett stayed the deadline for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond until the joint letter is filed. The court did not decide the merits of the action or rule on a motion to dismiss.

The detailed version

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

Case
Trippett v. Juniors Cheesecake, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01211
Judge
Garnett
Date
Feb. 13, 2025

Nature of the Order

This is a case-management and settlement order. It does not decide whether either party is legally right, and it does not rule on a motion to dismiss.

Required Settlement Discussions

The court ordered the parties to meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith attempt to settle the action. That meeting must occur within 30 days after Defendant is served with the summons and complaint.

The parties must discuss whether Plaintiff has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning whether he is legally entitled to bring the case. They must also discuss whether the website involved is a “standalone website,” which the order defines as a business website without a physical location. The order notes that some Southern District of New York decisions have held that such a website is not a “place of public accommodation” under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

Joint Letter and Response Deadline

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

The letter must also state whether Defendant plans to answer the complaint or move to dismiss it. If Defendant anticipates moving to dismiss, the letter must briefly state the basis for that anticipated motion in no more than one paragraph.

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

Additional Notice Requirement

Counsel who had appeared when the order was issued must promptly serve the order and the judge’s Individual Rules and Practices on counsel who had not appeared, or on the party personally if counsel’s identity is unknown. Counsel must also file proof of that notice with the court.

Disposition

Judge Margaret M. Garnett ordered the settlement and reporting procedures described above and stayed Defendant’s response deadline. The order did not dismiss the case, decide standing, determine whether the website is a place of public accommodation, or otherwise resolve the merits.

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.