Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 12, 2025

Delacruz v. Boggi New York LLC

Full caption

Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Boggi New York LLC

Judge
Garnett
Docket
1:25-cv-09402
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureADA / Disability
In one sentence

In Delacruz v. Boggi New York LLC, Judge Garnett ordered settlement discussions and postponed Defendant’s response to the complaint.

Who this affects

Emanuel Delacruz, Boggi New York LLC, and their counsel or parties who have not yet appeared. The order requires settlement discussions, a joint status letter, and service of court materials, while pausing Defendant’s deadline to respond to the complaint.

What happened

In Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Boggi New York LLC, the court ordered the parties to try to settle the case after Defendant is served with the summons and complaint. The order references questions about standing and whether the website involved is a public accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but it does not decide those questions.

The parties must meet for at least one hour within 30 days after service and then file a joint letter within 15 more days. If they do not settle, the letter must ask for mediation, a settlement conference before a magistrate judge, or an initial status conference, and must state whether Defendant plans to answer or move to dismiss. Defendant’s deadline to respond is paused until the letter is filed.

Judge Margaret M. Garnett also directed appearing counsel to serve the order and the court’s individual rules on counsel or parties who have not appeared. The court did not rule on the claims or on any motion to dismiss.

The detailed version

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

Case
Delacruz v. Boggi New York LLC · No. 1:25-cv-09402
Judge
Garnett
Date
Nov. 12, 2025

Order and Settlement Discussions

The court ordered the parties to meet and confer within 30 days after Defendant is served with the summons and complaint. The meeting must last at least one hour and must be a good-faith attempt to settle the action.

During those discussions, the parties were directed to consider whether Plaintiff has met the threshold requirement of standing, meaning a sufficient personal connection to bring the case in federal court. They were also directed to consider whether the website involved is a “standalone website”—described in the order as a business website without a physical location—and whether such a website qualifies as a “place of public accommodation” under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The order notes that some courts in the Southern District of New York have held that standalone websites do not qualify, but Judge Garnett did not decide either issue.

Follow-Up Joint Letter

If the parties cannot settle through their own discussions, they must also discuss whether further settlement efforts through the district court’s mediation program or before a magistrate judge would be productive.

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 request either referral to mediation or a settlement conference before a magistrate judge, with a preference between those options, or an initial status conference. The letter must also state whether Defendant intends to answer the complaint or move to dismiss it. If Defendant plans to move to dismiss, the letter must briefly state the basis for the anticipated motion in no more than one paragraph.

Other Directives and Disposition

The deadline for Defendant 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 Defendant’s answer or a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss.

Counsel who had appeared when the order was issued must promptly serve the order and Judge Garnett’s Individual Rules and Practices on counsel for parties who had not appeared, or on those parties personally if their counsel’s identity is unknown. They must also file proof of that notice.

The order is a procedural case-management order. It does not grant or deny a motion, dismiss any claim, or decide the standing or Americans with Disabilities Act issues.

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.