Thorne v. Lipscomb University
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-00815
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Thorne v. Lipscomb University, Judge Rochon ordered settlement talks and a joint status letter while directing the parties to consider standing.
Braulio Thorne and Lipscomb University, who must follow the court’s settlement-meeting and joint-letter requirements.
What happened
In Thorne v. Lipscomb University, the court issued a case-management order requiring Braulio Thorne and Lipscomb University to try to settle the case. The order did not decide the claims or whether Thorne has standing to sue.
Within 30 days after the summons and complaint are served, the parties must meet for at least one hour and make a good-faith effort to settle. They must also discuss whether additional settlement discussions through court-annexed mediation or a settlement conference with a magistrate judge would be useful.
Within 15 more days, the parties must file a joint letter stating whether they settled. If they did not, they must ask either for mediation or a magistrate-judge settlement conference, stating their preference, or ask the court to hold an initial status conference. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued the order.
The detailed version
- Thorne v. Lipscomb University · No. 1:23-cv-00815
- Rochon
- Feb. 2, 2023
Background
The case was assigned to Judge Rochon for all purposes. The opinion is an administrative case-management order and does not resolve the parties’ underlying legal dispute.
Settlement-meeting requirement
The court ordered the parties to meet and confer within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint. The meeting must last at least one hour and must be a good-faith effort to settle the action. During those discussions, the parties must consider whether Braulio Thorne has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning a sufficient legal basis to bring the case. The court cited Calcano v. Swarovski North America Ltd. and Harty v. West Point Realty, Inc. in connection with that issue.
If the parties cannot settle on their own, they must also discuss whether further settlement discussions through the district’s court-annexed mediation program or before a magistrate judge would be productive at that time.
Joint letter and next steps
Within 15 additional days—within 45 days after service of the summons and complaint—the parties must submit a joint letter telling the court whether they have settled. If they have not settled, the letter must request either referral to mediation or a magistrate judge for a settlement conference, with the parties’ preference identified, or an initial status conference.
Disposition and scope
The court ordered the settlement discussions and joint-letter procedures. It did not rule on standing, the merits of the case, or any class-related issue.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.