Brown v. Quality A Plus Dry Cleaner Inc. and 200 2 Ave LLC
- Garnett
- 1:26-cv-06013
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Altaune Brown v. Quality A Plus Dry Cleaner, Judge Garnett ordered settlement talks, a joint letter, and a pause in Defendants’ response deadline.
The order affects Plaintiff Altaune Brown, Defendants Quality A Plus Dry Cleaner Inc. and 200 2 Ave LLC, and counsel who have appeared or later appear in the case.
What happened
In Altaune Brown v. Quality A Plus Dry Cleaner Inc. and 200 2 Ave LLC, the court ordered the parties to try to settle the case soon after Defendants are served with the summons and complaint. The order did not decide the claims or whether Plaintiff has standing to sue.
Within 30 days after service on each Defendant, the parties must meet for at least one hour and discuss settlement, including whether Plaintiff meets the legal requirement of standing. If they cannot settle, they must discuss whether court-connected mediation or a settlement conference before a magistrate judge would help. Within 45 days after service, they must file a joint letter reporting the settlement status and stating whether they want mediation, a settlement conference, or an initial status conference.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett also stayed the deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond until the joint letter is filed. The court will then set either a response deadline or a schedule for a motion to dismiss. Counsel who have appeared must promptly serve the order and the judge’s rules on parties or counsel who have not appeared and file proof of that notice.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Quality A Plus Dry Cleaner Inc. and 200 2 Ave LLC · No. 1:26-cv-06013
- Garnett
- July 20, 2026
Nature of the Order
This is a case-management and settlement order. The court did not rule on the underlying claims, Plaintiff’s standing, or any motion to dismiss. The opinion does not identify the claims asserted in the complaint.
Settlement Discussions
The court ordered the parties to meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith effort to settle the action. The meeting must occur within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint on each Defendant. The parties must consider whether Plaintiff has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing. If they cannot settle the case themselves, they must also discuss whether further settlement discussions through the district’s court-annexed mediation program or before a magistrate judge would be productive at that time.
Joint Letter and Next Steps
Within 15 additional days—45 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 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 Defendants intend to answer or move to dismiss the complaint. If Defendants anticipate moving to dismiss, they must briefly state the basis for that anticipated motion in no more than one paragraph.
Response Deadline and Notice Requirements
The deadline for Defendants 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 a deadline for Defendants to 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. If counsel do not know the identity of another party’s counsel, they must send the materials directly to that party. Counsel must file proof of the notice with the court.
Disposition
Judge Margaret M. Garnett ordered the settlement and reporting procedures, stayed Defendants’ response deadline pending the joint letter, and deferred further scheduling until that letter is filed. The order did not dismiss the case or decide its merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.