Sylinia Jackson v. Mother Nature Organics Corp.
- Garnett
- 1:25-cv-07342
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sylinia Jackson v. Mother Nature Organics Corp., Judge Garnett ordered settlement discussions and temporarily stayed Defendant’s response deadline.
Sylinia Jackson, Mother Nature Organics Corp., and counsel or parties required to receive notice must comply with the settlement, reporting, response-deadline, and notice requirements.
What happened
In Sylinia Jackson v. Mother Nature Organics Corp., the court ordered the parties to meet for at least one hour within 30 days after Defendant is served with the summons and complaint, attempting in good faith to settle the case.
The parties must discuss whether Plaintiff has standing and whether the website is a standalone website that qualifies as a public accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. If they do not settle, they must jointly report within 45 days whether they want mediation, a settlement conference before a magistrate judge, or an initial status conference.
The court stayed Defendant’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond until the joint letter is filed, after which Judge Margaret M. Garnett will set a response deadline or a schedule for a motion to dismiss. The order does not decide the standing or website-accessibility issues.
The detailed version
- Sylinia Jackson v. Mother Nature Organics Corp. · No. 1:25-cv-07342
- Garnett
- Sept. 5, 2025
Background
The court issued a case-management and settlement order in this action. The order discusses a website at issue in the case and identifies possible questions about Plaintiff’s standing and whether the website is a “standalone website”—a business website without a physical location. The order cites decisions from the Southern District of New York holding that some standalone websites are not places of public accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Required settlement discussions
Within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint on Defendant, the parties must meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith effort to settle the action. Their discussions must include whether Plaintiff has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing and whether the website qualifies as a place of public accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
If the parties cannot settle the case themselves, they must also discuss whether further settlement discussions through the court’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 stating whether they settled. If they did not settle, the letter must ask the court either to refer the case to mediation or to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference, with a preference between those options, or to proceed with an initial status conference.
The joint letter must also state whether Defendant intends to answer or move to dismiss the complaint. If Defendant intends to move to dismiss, the letter must briefly, in no more than one paragraph, describe the anticipated motion’s basis.
The court stayed Defendant’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 Defendant’s answer or a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss.
Notice to counsel and disposition
Counsel who had appeared when the order was issued must promptly serve the order and the judge’s Individual Rules and Practices on counsel for parties who had not appeared, or personally on an unrepresented party if counsel’s identity was unknown. The serving counsel must file proof of that notice.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett ordered the settlement discussions, joint letter, notice obligations, and stay of Defendant’s response deadline. The order does not decide whether Plaintiff has standing, whether the website is a place of public accommodation, or whether any motion to dismiss should be granted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.