Espinal v. Reuzel, Inc.

What the order concerns

The court issued a case-management and settlement order in Frangie Espinal’s action against Reuzel, Inc. The order refers to the website involved in the action and to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal law concerning access to places of public accommodation. It also directs the parties to consider whether Espinal has standing, meaning a sufficient legal connection to bring the case.

Required settlement discussions

The parties must meet and confer for at least one hour within 30 days after Reuzel is served with the summons and complaint. They must make a good-faith effort to settle the action. During those discussions, they must consider the standing issue and whether the website is a “standalone website”—described in the order as a business website without a physical location. The order notes that some courts in the Southern District of New York have held that such a website is not a “place of public accommodation” under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The order does not adopt or decide that position.

If the parties cannot settle on their own, they must also discuss whether additional settlement discussions through the district 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 submit a joint letter stating 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 between those options, or an initial status conference. The letter must also state whether Reuzel intends to answer the complaint or move to dismiss it. If Reuzel plans to move to dismiss, the letter must briefly state the basis for the anticipated motion in no more than one paragraph.

The deadline for Reuzel 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 Reuzel’s answer or a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss.

Other direction and disposition

Counsel who had appeared when the order was issued must promptly serve the order and Judge Garnett’s individual rules on counsel for parties who had not appeared, or personally on a party if the receiving counsel does not know that party’s lawyer. Counsel must file proof of that notice with the court.

Judge Margaret M. Garnett did not rule on the merits of the action. The order instead sets settlement and case-management requirements and temporarily stays the deadline for Reuzel to respond to the complaint.