Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 13, 2023

Dawson v. Wholesale Accessory Market, Inc.

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:23-cv-07951
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Dawson v. Wholesale Accessory Market, Judge Rochon ordered settlement discussions and a joint status letter, while directing the parties to consider standing.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, including Lashawn Dawson, and Wholesale Accessory Market, Inc., who must comply with the settlement-discussion and joint-letter requirements.

What happened

In Dawson v. Wholesale Accessory Market, Inc., the court ordered the plaintiffs and Wholesale Accessory Market, Inc. to meet and discuss settlement within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint. The court directed them to consider whether the plaintiff had legal standing to bring the case.

The parties must meet for at least one hour in a good-faith effort to settle. Within 15 more days—45 days after service—they must file a joint letter stating whether they settled. If not, they must ask the court either to refer the case to mediation or a settlement conference before a magistrate judge, or to schedule an initial status conference.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued this procedural order on September 13, 2023. The order did not decide whether the plaintiff had standing or resolve the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Dawson v. Wholesale Accessory Market, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-07951
Judge
Rochon
Date
Sept. 13, 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 specifically directed to discuss whether the plaintiff had satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning a sufficient legal connection to bring the case in federal court. The order cited Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd. and Harty v. W. Point Realty, Inc. as examples concerning standing.

If the parties could not settle on their own, 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—within 45 days after service of the summons and complaint—the parties must submit a joint letter telling the court 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, with a preference between those options, or an initial status conference.

Disposition and Scope

This is a procedural order concerning settlement discussions and case management. Judge Rochon did not decide standing, the merits of the plaintiffs' claims, or the defendant's liability.

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.