Wright v. Chewy
Jazmine Wright, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Chewy, Inc.
- Garnett
- 1:25-cv-08810
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wright v. Chewy, Judge Garnett ordered the parties to discuss settlement and possible issues with standing and the website’s accessibility claim.
Jazmine Wright, Chewy, Inc., and their counsel must follow the settlement, reporting, response-deadline, and notice requirements in the order.
What happened
Jazmine Wright’s case against Chewy, Inc. concerns a website and a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The order does not decide whether the claim is valid or whether the case may proceed as a class action.
The court ordered the parties to meet for at least one hour within 30 days after Chewy is served, and to discuss settlement, whether Wright has standing, and whether the website qualifies as a place of public accommodation. If they do not settle, they must discuss mediation or a settlement conference before a magistrate judge.
Within 45 days after service, the parties must file a joint letter reporting whether they settled and identifying the next step. Judge Garnett stayed Chewy’s deadline to answer or respond until after that letter is filed; the court will then set a response deadline or a schedule for a motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Wright v. Chewy · No. 1:25-cv-08810
- Garnett
- Oct. 28, 2025
What the Order Does
This order sets early case-management and settlement requirements. It does not decide the merits of Jazmine Wright’s claims against Chewy, Inc., and it does not rule on whether the case may proceed as a class action.
Settlement Discussions
Within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint on Chewy, the parties must meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith effort to settle. During those discussions, they must consider whether Wright has standing, meaning a sufficient legal connection to bring the case. They must also consider whether the website involved is a “standalone website”—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.
If the parties cannot settle on their own, they must also discuss whether further discussions 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 of the summons and complaint—the parties must file a joint letter telling the court 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 letter must also state whether Chewy intends to answer the complaint or move to dismiss it. If Chewy plans to seek dismissal, it must briefly state the basis for the anticipated motion in no more than one paragraph.
Chewy’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is stayed pending the joint letter. After the letter is filed, the court will set either a deadline for Chewy’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 Judge Garnett’s Individual Rules and Practices to counsel for parties who had not yet appeared, or personally to those parties if their counsel is unknown. Counsel must also file proof that the notice was given.
Disposition
Judge Margaret M. Garnett issued an order requiring settlement discussions, a joint status letter, and notice to other parties. The order does not grant or deny a motion, dismiss any claim, or resolve the standing or website issues.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.