Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 27, 2022

Francis v. IMA Pizza Store 23 LLC

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:22-cv-09134
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Francis v. IMA Pizza Store 23 LLC, Judge Rochon ordered settlement discussions and a joint status letter without deciding standing.

Who this affects

Ashley Francis and IMA Pizza Store 23 LLC, who must comply with the court’s settlement-discussion and joint-letter requirements.

What happened

In Francis v. IMA Pizza Store 23 LLC, the court ordered Ashley Francis and IMA Pizza Store 23 LLC to meet and discuss settlement within 30 days after the summons and complaint are served.

The parties must discuss whether Francis has met the basic legal requirement of having standing to bring the case. If they cannot settle, they must also discuss whether mediation or a settlement conference with a magistrate judge would be useful.

Within 45 days after service, the parties must send a joint letter telling the court whether they settled. If not, they must ask either for mediation or a magistrate-judge settlement conference, stating their preference, or ask to proceed with an initial status conference. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon did not decide the standing issue or the merits of the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Francis v. IMA Pizza Store 23 LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09134
Judge
Rochon
Date
Oct. 27, 2022

Order and Background

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon stated that the case had been assigned to her for all purposes. The order addresses early case-management and settlement steps; it does not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.

Settlement Meeting

Within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint, Ashley Francis and IMA Pizza Store 23 LLC must meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith attempt to settle the action. The parties must discuss whether Francis has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning the legal requirement that a plaintiff be entitled to bring the case. The order cites Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd. and Harty v. W. Point Realty, Inc. in connection with that issue.

If the parties cannot settle on their own, they must also discuss whether additional settlement discussions through the court’s mediation program or before a magistrate judge would be productive at that time.

Joint Letter and Further Proceedings

Within 15 additional days—45 days after service of the summons and complaint—the parties must submit a joint letter informing the court whether they settled. If they did not settle, the letter must request one of two options: referral to mediation or to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference, with the parties’ preference stated, or an initial status conference.

Disposition

The court entered these case-management and settlement directives. The order did not rule on standing, dismiss any claim, or decide the merits.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.