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

CLAY LEE JONES v. GLOBAL RETAIL BRANDS USA

Full caption

CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GLOBAL RETAIL BRANDS USA, LLC

Judge
Garnett
Docket
1:25-cv-09870
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureADA / Disability
In one sentence

In Jones v. Global Retail Brands USA, LLC, Judge Garnett ordered settlement talks, a joint status letter, and stayed Global Retail Brands’ response deadline.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and defendant are required to participate in the settlement discussions and joint-letter process; the defendant’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond is temporarily stayed.

What happened

In CLAY LEE JONES v. GLOBAL RETAIL BRANDS USA, LLC, the court ordered the parties to meet for at least one hour within 30 days after the defendant is served with the summons and complaint. They must make a good-faith effort to settle the case.

The parties must discuss whether the plaintiff has standing and whether the website involved is a standalone website that qualifies as a public accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. If they do not settle, they must also discuss mediation or a settlement conference with a magistrate judge.

Within 45 days after service, the parties must file a joint letter stating whether they settled and, if not, whether they request mediation, a magistrate-judge settlement conference, or an initial status conference. Judge Margaret M. Garnett stayed the defendant’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond until after that letter is filed.

The detailed version

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

Case
CLAY LEE JONES v. GLOBAL RETAIL BRANDS USA · No. 1:25-cv-09870
Judge
Garnett
Date
Dec. 3, 2025

Order and case status

This is a case-management and settlement order. The court did not decide the merits of the plaintiff’s claims, whether the plaintiff has standing, or whether the website qualifies as a place 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 Global Retail Brands USA, LLC, the parties must meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith attempt to settle the action. During those discussions, they must consider whether the plaintiff satisfies the threshold requirement of standing. They must also consider whether the website is a “standalone website,” which the order describes as 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 discuss whether further 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 settlement conference, with a preference between those options, or an initial status conference. The letter must also state whether Global Retail Brands 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 Global Retail Brands to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is stayed pending submission of the joint letter. After the letter is filed, the court will set either a deadline for the answer or a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss.

Service of the order

Counsel who had appeared by the date of the order must promptly serve the order and the judge’s Individual Rules and Practices on counsel who have not appeared, or on the party personally if the identity of that party’s counsel is unknown. The receiving counsel must file proof of that notice with the court.

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.