Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 3, 2025

Jones v. Alan Philips LLC

Full caption

Clay Lee Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Alan Philips LLC

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:25-cv-08993
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Jones v. Alan Philips LLC, Judge Tarnofsky ordered the parties to discuss settlement and Plaintiff’s standing before further proceedings.

Who this affects

Clay Lee Jones and Alan Philips LLC, the parties required to participate in settlement discussions and submit a joint letter to the court.

What happened

Clay Lee Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Alan Philips LLC is a proposed class action in which the court issued an early case-management order. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

The court ordered Jones and Alan Philips LLC to meet for at least one hour within 14 days after service of the summons and complaint and make a good-faith effort to settle. They must discuss whether Jones has standing, meaning a sufficient legal connection to bring the case, and whether court-connected mediation or a settlement conference would be useful.

Within 18 days after service, the parties must submit a joint letter stating whether they settled. If not, they must ask the court either to refer the case to mediation, schedule a settlement conference, or proceed with an initial case-management conference. Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky issued the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jones v. Alan Philips LLC · No. 1:25-cv-08993
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Nov. 3, 2025

Order

The court entered an order requiring the parties to take part in early settlement discussions. Within 14 days after service of the summons and complaint, Plaintiff Clay Lee Jones and Defendant Alan Philips LLC must meet and confer for at least one hour and make a good-faith attempt to settle the action.

Issues to Discuss

The parties must consider whether Jones has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning whether he has a sufficient legal basis to bring the case. The order cites Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd. and Harty v. W. Point Realty, Inc. on that issue. If the parties cannot settle on their own, they must also discuss whether further discussions through the court’s mediation program or a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky would be productive at that time.

Required Joint Letter and Disposition

Within 18 days after service of the summons and complaint, the parties must submit a joint letter telling the court whether they settled. If they did not settle, the letter must request one of three options: referral to mediation, a scheduled settlement conference, or an initial case-management conference.

This order does not decide the merits of Jones’s claims or the standing issue. It directs the parties to discuss those matters and sets deadlines for reporting to the court. Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky signed the order on November 3, 2025.

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.