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

Dawson v. Charles Capasso & Sons Carting Inc.

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:25-cv-03223
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureEmployment
In one sentence

In Dawson v. Charles Capasso, Judge Karas granted the parties’ requests for mediation referral and adjourned the initial conference.

Who this affects

The parties in Dawson v. Charles Capasso & Sons Carting Inc.; the case was referred to mediation and its initial conference was postponed.

What happened

Dawson v. Charles Capasso & Sons Carting Inc. involves a joint request by the parties to send the case to the Southern District of New York’s alternative dispute resolution program. The parties said they wanted to begin settlement discussions and follow specified discovery procedures.

The parties also asked to postpone the July 23, 2025 initial conference because of the planned mediation and the plaintiff’s counsel’s trial in another federal court. The order granted both requests.

Judge Kenneth M. Karas referred the case to the alternative dispute resolution program and adjourned the initial conference. The new conference date is not clear in the available text.

The detailed version

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

Case
Dawson v. Charles Capasso & Sons Carting Inc. · No. 7:25-cv-03223
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
July 7, 2025

Background

Defense counsel submitted a letter stating that the defendants and plaintiff jointly requested referral to the Southern District of New York’s alternative dispute resolution program. The request cited the court’s standing order concerning automatic mediation referrals in counseled employment cases. The parties said they intended to use the specified discovery procedures to support early settlement discussions.

The parties also requested that the July 23, 2025 initial conference be postponed until after the scheduled mediation. The letter stated that plaintiff’s counsel was scheduled to begin a trial on July 23, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The parties said this was the defendants’ first request and that plaintiff’s counsel consented. They stated that the requests would not affect other scheduled dates.

Ruling

The court granted both requests. It referred the case to the alternative dispute resolution program and adjourned the initial conference. The text provided does not clearly show the rescheduled conference date or time.

Effect

This order concerns case management and mediation. It does not decide the underlying claims or defenses. The available text does not state what those claims or defenses are.

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.