Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 28, 2022

Hegazy v. The Halal Guys, Inc.

Judge
Loretta Preska
Docket
1:22-cv-01880
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Hegazy v. The Halal Guys, Inc., Judge Schofield canceled the initial conference and ordered talks about conditional certification and notice.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants were affected by the cancellation of the initial pretrial conference, the required discussion and report concerning conditional certification and notice, and the instructions about settlement procedures, discovery deadlines, and status letters.

What happened

In Hegazy v. The Halal Guys, Inc., the court canceled the initial pretrial conference scheduled for May 4, 2022, because the parties’ joint materials raised no significant issues. The court said a case-management plan and scheduling order would be issued separately.

The parties were ordered to meet and discuss whether they would agree to conditional certification and the form of notice, then report their position to the court by May 4. The order did not decide whether certification should be granted. The parties could also ask for a settlement conference or mediation when ready.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued the order. She also emphasized that discovery deadlines generally would not be extended without compelling circumstances and reminded the parties about periodic status letters and pre-motion letters.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hegazy v. The Halal Guys, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01880
Judge
Loretta Preska
Date
Apr. 28, 2022

Background

The court stated that an initial pretrial conference was scheduled for May 4, 2022. The parties’ joint letter and proposed case-management plan did not raise significant issues.

Order

Judge Lorna G. Schofield canceled the May 4 initial pretrial conference. The parties could ask the court to reinstate the conference if they believed one would be useful. The court said that a case-management plan and scheduling order would issue separately.

The court ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a letter by May 4 stating whether they would stipulate to conditional certification and agreeing on the form of notice. Conditional certification is an early-stage determination that allows notice to be sent to potential similarly situated participants. The order reserved the defendants’ rights to object to final certification under the more demanding standard that would apply later. The court did not itself grant or deny conditional certification.

The court also directed the parties to file a joint letter requesting a referral if and when they were ready for a settlement conference with the assigned magistrate judge or for mediation through the court’s mediation program. It stated that deadlines for factual and expert discovery generally would not be extended without compelling circumstances. The court specifically highlighted provisions concerning periodic status letters and pre-motion letters, noting that failure to use the required pre-motion process could result in cancellation of the final conference and the setting of a trial date.

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.