Isakov v. Athletic Propulsion Labs, LLC
- Tarnofsky
- 1:25-cv-02141
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Isakov v. Athletic Propulsion Labs, Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky ordered settlement discussions, consideration of standing, and a report on mediation or case management.
The parties to Isakov v. Athletic Propulsion Labs, LLC, including Simon Isakov and Athletic Propulsion Labs, LLC, must follow the settlement-discussion and reporting requirements.
What happened
Isakov v. Athletic Propulsion Labs, LLC is a case brought by Simon Isakov on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The order does not describe the claims or decide whether the case may proceed.
The court ordered the parties to meet for at least one hour within 30 days after the summons and complaint are served and make a good-faith effort to settle. They must also discuss whether Isakov has standing, meaning a sufficient legal connection to bring the case, and whether court-connected mediation or a settlement conference would be useful.
Within 45 days after service, the parties must file a joint letter stating whether they settled. If not, they must ask the court to refer the case to mediation, schedule a settlement conference, or set an initial case-management conference. Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky issued the order on March 20, 2025.
The detailed version
- Isakov v. Athletic Propulsion Labs, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-02141
- Tarnofsky
- Mar. 20, 2025
Background
The caption identifies Simon Isakov as a plaintiff suing on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and Athletic Propulsion Labs, LLC as the defendant. The opinion is an order concerning settlement and case management; it does not describe the underlying claims or resolve their merits.
Orders for the Parties
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 attempt to settle the action. During those discussions, they must consider whether the plaintiff has standing, meaning whether he has the legally required connection to the dispute to bring the case. The order cites decisions concerning standing but does not decide the standing issue.
If the parties cannot settle on their own, they must also discuss whether additional settlement discussions through the District's court-annexed mediation program or before Judge Tarnofsky would be productive at that time.
Within 45 days after service of the summons and complaint, the parties must submit a joint letter stating whether they have settled. If they have not settled, the letter must request that the court either refer the case to mediation, set a date for a settlement conference, or proceed with an initial case-management conference.
Disposition
Judge Tarnofsky entered the settlement and case-management directives described above. The order does not rule on standing, the underlying claims, or any party's ultimate legal position.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.