Lopez v. Truskin Partners
- Garnett
- 1:25-cv-07560
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Victor Lopez v. Truskin Partners, Judge Garnett ordered settlement discussions and a joint status letter while pausing Defendant’s response deadline.
Victor Lopez, Truskin Partners, Inc., and counsel who have appeared or later appear in the action.
What happened
In Victor Lopez v. Truskin Partners, Inc., the court ordered the parties to meet for at least one hour within 30 days after Truskin Partners, Inc. is served with the summons and complaint. They must make a good-faith effort to settle the case.
The parties must discuss whether Lopez has standing to bring the action and whether the website involved is a standalone website that may not qualify as a public accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. If they cannot settle, they must consider mediation or a settlement conference with a magistrate judge.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett also required a joint letter within 45 days after service, paused Truskin Partners, Inc.’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond, and directed counsel to provide other parties with the order and the judge’s individual rules. The order did not decide the merits of the case.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Truskin Partners · No. 1:25-cv-07560
- Garnett
- Sept. 15, 2025
Nature of the Order
This is a case-management and settlement order. The court did not decide whether either party is legally right, whether Lopez has standing, or whether the website violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Required Settlement Discussions
Within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint on Truskin Partners, Inc., the parties must meet and confer for at least one hour and make a good-faith attempt to settle the action. The parties should discuss whether Lopez has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning a sufficient legal connection to bring the case.
The parties should also discuss whether the website at issue is a “standalone website,” which the order describes as a business website without a physical location. The order notes that some Southern District of New York decisions 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 efforts through the district 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 of the summons and complaint—the parties must submit a joint letter stating whether they settled. If they did not settle, the letter must request either referral to mediation or a magistrate judge for a settlement conference, with a preference identified, or an initial status conference.
The joint letter must also state whether Truskin Partners, Inc. intends to answer or move to dismiss the complaint. If it intends to move to dismiss, the letter must briefly state the basis for the anticipated motion in no more than one paragraph.
The deadline for Truskin Partners, Inc. to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is stayed, meaning paused, until the joint letter is submitted. After the letter is filed, the court will set either a deadline for the answer or a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss.
Counsel Notice
Counsel who had appeared when the order was issued must promptly serve the order and Judge Garnett’s individual rules on counsel for parties who had not appeared, or directly on the party if counsel’s identity was unknown. Counsel must also file proof of that notice with the court.
Disposition
The court entered the settlement and case-management directives described above. It did not rule on a motion to dismiss or resolve the standing or Americans with Disabilities Act issues.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.