Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 30, 2025

Trippett v. Sugar Bear Bros., Inc.

Judge
Garnett
Docket
1:25-cv-06213
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureADA / Disability
In one sentence

In Trippett v. Sugar Bear Bros., Judge Garnett ordered settlement discussions and a joint status letter while staying Defendant’s response deadline.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Alfred Trippett, Defendant Sugar Bear Bros., Inc., and their counsel are affected by the required settlement discussions, joint letter, notice obligations, and stayed response deadline.

What happened

Trippett v. Sugar Bear Bros., Inc. is a case involving a website and issues under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court’s order did not decide those issues.

The parties must meet for at least one hour within 30 days after Defendant is served, including discussing standing and whether the website qualifies as a place of public accommodation. Within 45 days after service, they must submit a joint letter reporting on settlement and stating whether Defendant will answer or move to dismiss.

Judge Margaret M. Garnett stayed Defendant’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond until the joint letter is filed. The order directs the court to set a later answer deadline or motion-to-dismiss schedule.

The detailed version

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

Case
Trippett v. Sugar Bear Bros., Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-06213
Judge
Garnett
Date
July 30, 2025

Order

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

Issues Identified for Discussion

During settlement discussions, the parties must consider whether Plaintiff has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning whether Plaintiff has the required legal connection to bring the case. They must also consider whether the website involved is a “standalone website,” described in the order as a business website without a physical location, and whether such a website is a “place of public accommodation” under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The order cited decisions from the Southern District of New York addressing those issues but did not resolve them in this case.

If the parties cannot settle on their own, they must discuss whether further settlement efforts through the court’s mediation program or before a magistrate judge would be productive.

Joint Letter and Response Deadline

Within 15 additional days—45 days after service—the parties must file a joint letter stating whether they have settled. If they have not settled, the letter must ask the court either to refer the case to mediation or a magistrate judge for a settlement conference, with a preference identified, or to proceed with an initial status conference. The letter must also state whether Defendant plans to answer or move to dismiss the complaint. If Defendant plans to move to dismiss, the letter must briefly state the anticipated basis for that motion in no more than one paragraph.

The deadline for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is stayed until the joint letter is submitted. After the letter is filed, the court will set either a deadline for Defendant’s answer or a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss.

Notice to Counsel

Counsel who had appeared when the order was issued must promptly provide the order and the court’s Individual Rules and Practices to counsel for parties who had not appeared, or directly to those parties if their counsel’s identities were unknown. They must also file proof that the notice was provided.

Disposition

This is a case-management and settlement order. It does not grant or deny a motion, decide standing, determine whether the website is a place of public accommodation, or resolve the underlying action.

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.