Sumlin v. Patagonia, Inc.

Background

The opinion is an administrative and settlement-related order in Dennis Sumlin’s action against Patagonia, Inc. It does not state the complaint’s factual allegations or explain the relief sought. The order refers to a website at issue and to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal law addressing access to covered public accommodations.

Settlement and issues to discuss

The court ordered the parties to meet and confer for at least one hour within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint on Patagonia. They must make a good-faith attempt to settle the action. During those discussions, the parties should consider whether Sumlin has established standing, meaning a sufficient personal connection to bring the lawsuit. They should also consider whether the website is a “standalone website”—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.

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

Required joint letter and response deadline

Within 15 additional days—45 days after service—the parties must submit a joint letter telling the court 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. The letter must also state whether Patagonia intends to answer the complaint or move to dismiss it. If Patagonia anticipates moving to dismiss, the letter must briefly state the basis for that anticipated motion in no more than one paragraph.

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

Other directions and disposition

Counsel who had appeared by the date of the order must promptly serve the order and Judge Garnett’s Individual Rules and Practices on counsel for parties who had not appeared, or on those parties personally if counsel’s identities were unknown. Those counsel must also file proof of that notice with the court.

Judge Margaret M. Garnett did not decide standing, whether the website qualifies as a place of public accommodation, or any motion to dismiss. The order instead required settlement-related steps and paused the defendant’s response deadline.