Fernandez Martinez v. Japan America Trading Agency
- Garnett
- 1:25-cv-03874
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fernandez Martinez v. Japan America Trading Agency, Judge Garnett ordered settlement discussions and a joint update while staying the defendant’s response deadline.
The plaintiff and defendant must participate in the required settlement discussions and joint submission. The defendant’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is paused until the joint letter is filed.
What happened
In Fernandez Martinez v. Japan America Trading Agency, the court ordered the parties to try to settle the case and to discuss whether the plaintiff has legal standing to sue. The order also directed them to consider issues involving whether the website is covered by Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Within 30 days after the defendant is served, the parties must meet for at least one hour and make a good-faith settlement effort. Within 45 days after service, they must file a joint letter reporting whether they settled and, if not, requesting mediation, a settlement conference with a magistrate judge, or an initial status conference. The defendant’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond is paused until that letter is filed.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett issued this procedural order on May 15, 2025. The order did not decide standing, whether the website is covered by the disability law, or any other underlying claim.
The detailed version
- Fernandez Martinez v. Japan America Trading Agency · No. 1:25-cv-03874
- Garnett
- May 15, 2025
Order and procedural posture
Judge Margaret M. Garnett ordered the parties to engage in early settlement efforts. The order requires the parties, within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint on the defendant, to meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith attempt to settle the action.
Issues for settlement discussions
The parties must consider whether the plaintiff has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning the legal requirement that a plaintiff be entitled to bring the case. They must also consider whether the website involved is a “standalone website”—a business website without a physical location—and whether such a website qualifies as a “place of public accommodation” under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The court also directed the parties to discuss whether additional settlement discussions through the court’s mediation program or before a magistrate judge would be productive if they cannot settle on their own.
Required joint letter and response deadline
Within 15 additional days, or 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 to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference, with a preference between those options, or an initial status conference. The letter must also state whether the defendant intends to answer or move to dismiss the complaint. If the defendant intends to move to dismiss, the letter must briefly state the anticipated basis for that motion in no more than one paragraph.
The deadline for the defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is stayed, or paused, until the joint letter is submitted. After the letter is filed, the court will set either a deadline for the defendant’s answer or a schedule for briefing a motion to dismiss.
Disposition
This is a procedural case-management order. It does not decide whether the plaintiff has standing, whether the website qualifies as a place of public accommodation, or whether either party is entitled to judgment on the underlying claims. The order was signed by Judge Margaret M. Garnett on May 15, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.