Tarr v. United Time Group, LLC
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-09051
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tarr v. United Time Group, Judge Rochon ordered settlement talks and a joint status letter while asking the parties to consider standing.
The order affects Ellen Elizabeth Tarr and United Time Group, LLC, requiring both parties to participate in settlement discussions and submit a joint letter on the case’s next steps.
What happened
In Tarr v. United Time Group, LLC, Ellen Elizabeth Tarr sued United Time Group, LLC on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
The court ordered the parties to meet for at least one hour within 30 days after the summons and complaint are served and to make a good-faith effort to settle. They must also discuss whether Tarr has standing, meaning a sufficient legal connection to bring the case. Within 45 days after service, they must submit a joint letter stating whether they settled and, if not, asking for mediation, a settlement conference before a magistrate judge, or an initial status conference.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued the order on October 16, 2023. The order addresses settlement and case management; it does not rule on standing or the merits of the lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Tarr v. United Time Group, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-09051
- Rochon
- Oct. 16, 2023
Background
Ellen Elizabeth Tarr brought this action against United Time Group, LLC on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. The opinion is a case-management order and does not describe or resolve the underlying claims.
Court’s 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 include a good-faith attempt to settle the action. The parties were directed to consider whether the plaintiff satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning whether she has the required legal basis to bring the case. The order cited Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd. and Harty v. W. Point Realty, Inc. in connection with that issue.
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.
Reporting Requirement and Disposition
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 ask the court either to refer the case to mediation or to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference, while stating a preference between those options, or to proceed with an initial status conference.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued this order. The court did not decide standing, the merits of the claims, or whether the case could proceed as a class action.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.