Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 7, 2025

Jackson v. Onespan Inc.

Judge
Garnett
Docket
1:25-cv-05479
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureADA / Disability
In one sentence

In Jackson v. Onespan Inc., Judge Garnett ordered settlement discussions and paused Onespan’s response deadline while the parties report next steps.

Who this affects

Sylinia Jackson, Onespan Inc., and their counsel are affected by the required settlement discussions, joint-letter deadlines, notice requirements, and the stay of Onespan’s response deadline.

What happened

Sylinia Jackson sued Onespan Inc. on behalf of herself and other similarly situated people. This order did not decide the underlying dispute.

The court required the parties to meet for at least one hour within 30 days after Onespan is served, discuss settlement, and consider questions about Jackson’s standing and whether the website is a public accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. If they do not settle, they must discuss mediation or a settlement conference and submit a joint letter within the next 15 days.

Judge Margaret M. Garnett also paused Onespan’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond until the joint letter is filed. The court will then set a deadline for an answer or a schedule for a motion to dismiss.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jackson v. Onespan Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-05479
Judge
Garnett
Date
July 7, 2025

Nature of the Order

This is a case-management and settlement order. It does not resolve the merits of Jackson’s claims against Onespan Inc.

Required Settlement Discussions

The court ordered the parties to meet and confer for at least one hour within 30 days after Onespan is served with the summons and complaint. They must make a good-faith attempt to settle the action.

During those discussions, the parties must consider whether Jackson has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning whether she is legally entitled to bring the claims. They must also consider whether the website involved is a “standalone website,” which the order describes as a business website without a physical location. The order notes that some courts in the Southern District of New York have held that such a website is not a “place of public accommodation” under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

Joint Letter and Response Deadline

Within 15 additional days—45 days after service of the summons and complaint—the parties must file a joint letter telling the court whether they settled. If they did not settle, the letter must request either referral to mediation or a settlement conference before a magistrate judge, stating which option the parties prefer, or an initial status conference.

The joint letter must also state whether Onespan intends to answer the complaint or file a motion to dismiss. If Onespan plans to seek dismissal, the letter must briefly state the basis for the anticipated motion in no more than one paragraph.

The court stayed Onespan’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 Onespan to answer or a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss.

Notice Requirements and Disposition

Counsel who had appeared by the date of the order must promptly send the order and the judge’s individual rules to counsel for parties who had not appeared, or directly to those parties if their counsel’s identities were unknown. Counsel must also file proof that the required notice was provided.

Judge Margaret M. Garnett entered the order on July 7, 2025. The order requires settlement-related steps, sets reporting deadlines, stays Onespan’s response deadline, and leaves any answer or motion to dismiss for a later order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.