Williams v. 40 Mulberry Restaurant, Inc.
- Garnett
- 1:25-cv-04216
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. 40 Mulberry Restaurant, Judge Garnett ordered settlement talks and temporarily stayed the defendants’ response deadline.
Jeffrey Williams, A40 Mulberry Restaurant, Inc. doing business as Asia Roma, Mei Jing Inc., and their counsel or representatives are affected by the required settlement discussions, joint letter, notice obligations, and stayed response deadline.
What happened
In Williams v. 40 Mulberry Restaurant, the court ordered Jeffrey Williams and the defendants to meet for at least one hour within 30 days after each defendant is served. They must make a good-faith effort to settle and discuss whether Williams has established standing, meaning a sufficient legal basis to bring the case.
Within 15 more days, the parties must jointly tell the court whether they settled. If not, they must request mediation or a settlement conference with a magistrate judge, or ask to proceed with an initial status conference. The letter must also state whether the defendants plan to answer or ask the court to dismiss the complaint.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett stayed the defendants’ deadline to answer or otherwise respond until the joint letter is filed. The order does not decide whether Williams has standing or whether the complaint should be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Williams v. 40 Mulberry Restaurant, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-04216
- Garnett
- May 21, 2025
Order
The court entered a case-management and settlement order. It did not decide the merits of the claims, whether Plaintiff Jeffrey Williams has standing, or whether the complaint should be dismissed.
Settlement discussions
Within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint on each Defendant, the parties must meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith attempt to settle the action. During those discussions, the parties should consider whether Williams has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing. The order also directs 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 themselves.
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 the defendants intend to answer or move to dismiss the complaint. If they intend to move to dismiss, they must briefly describe the anticipated motion’s basis in no more than one paragraph.
The deadline for the defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is stayed pending the joint letter. After the letter is filed, the court will set either a deadline for an answer or a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss.
Notice to other counsel or parties
Counsel who had appeared when the order issued must promptly serve the order and the court’s Individual Rules and Practices on counsel for parties who had not appeared and file proof of that notice. If the identity of counsel is unknown, the materials must be sent to the party personally.
Disposition
Judge Margaret M. Garnett ordered the settlement discussions, joint letter, notice obligations, and stay described above. The order did not rule on standing or any anticipated motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.