Hilbert v. SFO84, Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-03759
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hilbert v. SFO84, Inc., Judge Rochon ordered settlement discussions and a joint status letter without deciding the case’s merits.
Laurel Hilbert and SFO84, Inc., the parties required to participate in the settlement discussions and submit the joint letter.
What happened
In Hilbert v. SFO84, Inc., the court ordered Laurel Hilbert and SFO84, Inc. to meet for at least one hour within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint. They must make a good-faith effort to settle and discuss whether Hilbert meets the legal requirement of having standing to bring the case.
If the parties cannot settle, they must also discuss whether further settlement efforts through court-connected mediation or a settlement conference before a magistrate judge would be useful. Within 45 days after service, they must file a joint letter stating whether they settled.
If there is no settlement, the joint letter must ask the court either to refer the case to mediation or a magistrate judge for a settlement conference, while stating a preference, or to schedule an initial status conference. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued this order on May 5, 2023; the order did not decide the merits of the dispute.
The detailed version
- Hilbert v. SFO84, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-03759
- Rochon
- May 5, 2023
Order
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 meeting must be a good-faith attempt to settle the action.
The parties were directed to consider whether Plaintiff Laurel Hilbert 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 order cited decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit but did not decide whether Hilbert had standing.
If the parties could not settle on their own, they were also required to discuss whether additional settlement discussions through the district’s court-annexed 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 had to submit a joint letter informing the court whether they had settled. If they had not settled, the letter had to request either: (1) referral to mediation or to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference, with the parties’ preference identified; or (2) an initial status conference.
Disposition and Effect
This order addressed settlement discussions and the next procedural steps. It did not resolve the parties’ underlying dispute or rule on the standing issue.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.