Toro v. GMT Games, LLC
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-06011
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Toro v. GMT Games, Judge Rochon ordered a late-answer request, settlement talks, and a status update without deciding the case’s merits.
Jasmine Toro and the other plaintiffs, and GMT Games, LLC, because the order imposed deadlines for GMT Games’ late-answer request, the plaintiff’s response, settlement discussions, and a joint status letter.
What happened
In Toro v. GMT Games, LLC, the court responded to the parties’ joint letter and GMT Games’ statement that it intended to respond to the complaint by October 28, 2022.
The court ordered GMT Games to request permission to file a late answer by a letter motion of no more than three pages by October 28. The plaintiff could respond by November 1. The parties also had to meet for at least one hour within 30 days to try in good faith to settle the case and discuss whether the plaintiff met the basic requirement of having standing to sue.
Judge Rochon further ordered the parties to report within 45 days whether they had settled. If not, they had to ask for mediation or a settlement conference with a magistrate judge, or request an initial status conference. The order did not decide standing or the merits of the case.
The detailed version
- Toro v. GMT Games, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-06011
- Rochon
- Oct. 24, 2022
Background
The court received the parties’ joint letter dated October 24, 2022, filed in response to earlier court orders. GMT Games stated that it intended to respond to the complaint by October 28, 2022.
Orders Concerning the Answer
The court ordered GMT Games to file, by October 28, a request for permission to file a late answer. The request had to be made by letter motion and could not exceed three pages. The plaintiff was ordered to respond by November 1, 2022.
Settlement and Standing Discussions
Within 30 days of the order, the parties had to meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith effort to settle the action. They were directed to consider whether the plaintiff had satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning the basic legal requirement that a person be entitled to bring the claim. The court did not decide whether standing existed. If the parties could not settle on their own, they also had to discuss whether additional settlement discussions through the court-annexed mediation program or before a magistrate judge would be productive.
Required Joint Letter and Disposition
Within 15 additional days, or within 45 days of the order, the parties had to submit a joint letter stating whether they had settled. If they had not settled, the letter had to request either referral to mediation or a settlement conference before a magistrate judge, with a preference identified, or an initial status conference. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon entered these case-management and settlement-related orders; the order did not resolve the merits of the claims or the standing issue.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.