Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 10, 2023

Velazquez v. The Wizard's Chest, Inc.

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:23-cv-00106
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Velazquez v. The Wizard’s Chest, Inc., Judge Rochon ordered the parties to discuss settlement, standing, and next steps.

Who this affects

Bryan Velazquez and The Wizard’s Chest, Inc., who must comply with the settlement-discussion and joint-letter requirements.

What happened

In Velazquez v. The Wizard’s Chest, Inc., the court ordered the parties to meet for at least one hour within 30 days after the summons and complaint are served. They must make a good-faith attempt to settle the case and discuss whether the plaintiff has met the threshold requirement of standing.

If the parties cannot settle, they must also discuss whether court-connected mediation or a settlement conference before a magistrate judge would be useful. The order does not decide whether the plaintiff has standing or resolve the underlying dispute.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon further ordered the parties to file a joint letter within 45 days after service stating whether they settled. If they did not, the letter must request mediation or a magistrate-judge settlement conference, or ask the court to schedule an initial status conference.

The detailed version

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

Case
Velazquez v. The Wizard's Chest, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00106
Judge
Rochon
Date
Jan. 10, 2023

Order

The case was assigned to Judge Rochon for all purposes. The court ordered the parties to meet and confer for at least one hour within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint. The parties must make a good-faith attempt to settle the action.

Standing and Further Settlement Discussions

During their discussions, the parties were directed to consider whether the plaintiff had satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning the legal requirement that a person have a sufficient connection to the dispute to invoke the court’s authority. The court cited decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concerning standing. The order did not decide whether the plaintiff had standing.

If the parties could not settle the case themselves, they were also required to discuss whether additional settlement discussions through the court’s mediation program or before a magistrate judge would be productive at that time.

Required Joint Letter

Within 15 additional days—45 days after service of the summons and complaint—the parties must submit a joint letter stating whether they settled. If they did not settle, the letter must request either referral to mediation or to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference, while indicating a preference between those options, or an initial status conference.

Disposition

This order imposed settlement-discussion and case-management requirements. It did not resolve the merits of the dispute, decide the standing issue, or rule on a motion.

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.