Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 23, 2025

Liz v. Danish Bake NYC, LLC

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:25-cv-05162
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Liz v. Danish Bake NYC, LLC, Judge Rochon ordered settlement discussions and a joint status letter, while directing the parties to consider standing.

Who this affects

Pedro Liz, Danish Bake NYC, LLC, and the people Liz seeks to represent.

What happened

In Liz v. Danish Bake NYC, LLC, Pedro Liz brought the action against Danish Bake NYC, LLC on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The court ordered the parties to try to settle the case.

Within 30 days after the summons and complaint are served, the parties must meet for at least one hour and make a good-faith effort to settle. They must discuss whether Liz has met the legal requirement of standing and whether court-connected mediation or a settlement conference with a magistrate judge would be useful if they cannot settle themselves.

Within 15 more days, the parties must send a joint letter stating whether they settled. If not, they must ask for mediation or a magistrate-judge settlement conference, or request an initial status conference. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon did not decide standing, the merits, or whether any class should be certified.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Liz v. Danish Bake NYC, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-05162
Judge
Rochon
Date
June 23, 2025

Order

The court entered a case-management order requiring the parties to pursue settlement discussions. The caption identifies Pedro Liz as suing on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, but this order does not address class certification.

Required Settlement Discussions

Within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint, Pedro Liz and Danish Bake NYC, LLC must meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith attempt to settle the action. The parties must consider whether Liz has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning whether he has the legally required connection to pursue the claims. The order cites Calcano v. Swarovski North America Ltd. and Harty v. West Point Realty, Inc. as examples concerning standing.

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 at that time.

Joint Letter and Next Step

Within 15 additional days—45 days after service of the summons and complaint—the parties must submit a joint letter telling the court 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 stated preference between those options, or an initial status conference.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered the settlement process and reporting deadlines. The order does not decide standing, the merits of Liz's claims, or any other substantive issue.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.