Fernandez v. Propr Fit, Inc.
- Garnett
- 1:25-cv-06547
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fernandez v. Propr Fit, Judge Garnett ordered settlement discussions and paused Propr Fit’s response deadline without deciding the disability claim’s merits.
Felipe Fernandez, Propr Fit, Inc., and the counsel involved in the action are affected by the settlement, joint-letter, service, and response-deadline requirements.
What happened
In Fernandez v. Propr Fit, Inc., Felipe Fernandez sued Propr Fit, Inc., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The order provides no detailed account of the claims, but it discusses issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act involving standing and whether the website is a public accommodation.
Judge Garnett ordered the parties to meet for at least one hour within 30 days after Propr Fit is served with the summons and complaint. They must discuss settlement, including the standing and website issues, and whether court-connected mediation or a settlement conference would help if they cannot settle themselves.
Within 45 days after service, the parties must submit a joint letter stating whether they settled and, if not, whether they want mediation, a settlement conference, or an initial status conference. The court stayed Propr Fit’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond until after that letter. Judge Garnett did not decide the merits of Fernandez’s claims.
The detailed version
- Fernandez v. Propr Fit, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-06547
- Garnett
- Aug. 12, 2025
Background
Felipe Fernandez brought this action against Propr Fit, Inc., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The order discusses the Americans with Disabilities Act, including whether Fernandez has standing and whether the website involved is a “standalone website”—defined in the order 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 websites are not “places of public accommodation” under Title III of the Act. The opinion does not otherwise describe the allegations or claims in detail.
Settlement and Case Management Order
The court ordered the parties to meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith effort to settle the action within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint on Propr Fit. During those discussions, the parties must consider the standing issue and whether the website qualifies as a place of public accommodation. If they cannot settle, they must also discuss whether further settlement efforts through the court’s mediation program or before a magistrate judge would be productive.
Within 15 additional days—45 days after service—the parties must file 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 stated, or an initial status conference. The letter must also state whether Propr Fit intends to answer or move to dismiss the complaint. If Propr Fit intends to move to dismiss, it must briefly state the anticipated basis for that motion.
Effect of the Order
The court stayed Propr Fit’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until the parties submit the joint letter. Afterward, the court will set either a deadline for Propr Fit to answer or a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss. Counsel who had appeared were directed to serve the order and the court’s individual rules on counsel who had not appeared, or on the party personally if counsel’s identity was unknown, and to file proof of that notice.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett entered this case-management order on August 12, 2025. The order does not grant or deny a motion, decide standing, determine whether the website is a public accommodation, or resolve the merits of the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.