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

Campbell v. Game Over Videogames, Inc.

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:22-cv-09949
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Campbell v. Game Over Videogames, Judge Rochon ordered the parties to meet, discuss settlement and standing, and report back.

Who this affects

Jovan Campbell, Game Over Videogames, Inc., and the proposed class members represented by Campbell.

What happened

Campbell v. Game Over Videogames, Inc. is a proposed class action brought by Jovan Campbell on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.

The order required the parties to meet and confer for at least one hour within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint. They were told to make a good-faith effort to settle and to discuss whether Campbell had legally sufficient standing to bring the case.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon also ordered the parties to submit a joint letter within 45 days after service. If they had not settled, the letter had to request either mediation or a settlement conference before a magistrate judge, or an initial status conference.

The detailed version

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

Case
Campbell v. Game Over Videogames, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09949
Judge
Rochon
Date
Nov. 28, 2022

Background

Jovan Campbell filed this proposed class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Game Over Videogames, Inc. The opinion is an administrative case-management order and does not decide the underlying claims.

Court’s Orders

The court ordered the parties to meet and confer for at least one hour within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint. They must make a good-faith attempt to settle the action. During those discussions, they must consider whether Campbell has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning whether he has the legal ability to pursue the claims in court. If they cannot settle the case themselves, they must also discuss whether additional settlement discussions through the district’s court-annexed mediation program or before a magistrate judge would be productive at that time.

The court further ordered the parties to submit a joint letter within 15 additional days—within 45 days after service—stating whether they had settled. If they had not settled, the joint letter had to ask the court either to refer the case to mediation or to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference, while stating a preference between those options, or to proceed with an initial status conference.

Disposition and Effect

The court issued these meeting, settlement-discussion, and reporting requirements. The order did not rule on standing or resolve the merits of the case.

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.