Doncouse v. JR FAMILY LLC
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-02699
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Doncouse v. JR Family LLC, Judge Rochon set filing, response, and settlement deadlines without deciding the case.
Graciela Doncouse and the defendants, JR Family LLC and the other defendant identified in the caption as an additional defendant, were required to meet the stated filing, response, settlement, and reporting deadlines.
What happened
In Doncouse v. JR Family LLC, the court addressed missed case-management deadlines and the defendants’ responses to the complaint. It did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint letter by December 13, 2022, after they missed a previously extended deadline. Because both defendants waived formal service, they were ordered to answer or otherwise respond by January 9, 2023, and the deadline for Plaintiff to seek a default judgment was postponed.
The parties also had to meet for at least one hour by January 3, 2023, to try in good faith to settle and discuss whether Plaintiff had met the basic requirement of having standing to sue. Judge Rochon ordered the parties to report by January 9 whether they settled and, if not, to request mediation, a settlement conference before a magistrate judge, or an initial status conference.
The detailed version
- Doncouse v. JR FAMILY LLC · No. 1:22-cv-02699
- Rochon
- Dec. 8, 2022
Nature of the Order
This was a case-management order. The court did not rule on the merits of the complaint or decide whether Plaintiff had standing. It directed the parties to complete filings, respond to the complaint, discuss settlement, and report their status.
Deadlines and Responses
The court had previously ordered the parties to file a joint letter by December 5, 2022, under ECF No. 19. They did not file it, and the court noted that it had already granted two extensions. The court ordered them to file the joint letter, containing the information requested in ECF No. 19, by December 13, 2022.
Plaintiff filed waivers of service signed by both defendants on November 10, 2022. Because of those waivers, the court ordered Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by January 9, 2023. The court also adjourned, or postponed, the previously imposed December 19, 2022 deadline for Plaintiff to move for default judgment.
Settlement and Standing Discussions
The court ordered the parties to meet and confer for at least one hour by January 3, 2023, in a good-faith attempt to settle the action. During those discussions, the parties were directed to consider whether Plaintiff had satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning the requirement that she be legally entitled to bring the case. The order cited decisions addressing standing but did not decide the issue.
If the parties could not settle, they were required to discuss whether additional settlement efforts through the district court’s mediation program or before a magistrate judge would be productive. By January 9, 2023, they had to file a joint letter stating whether they had settled. If not, the letter had to request either mediation or a settlement conference before a magistrate judge, with a preference identified, or an initial status conference.
Disposition
The court entered these scheduling and settlement directives. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon did not grant or deny a merits motion, dismiss the case, or resolve the standing question.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.