Velasquez v. Eileen's Special Cheesecake Of Queens, Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-09302
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Velasquez v. Eileen’s Special Cheesecake, Judge Rochon ordered settlement talks and a joint update while directing the parties to consider standing.
Ricardo Velasquez, Eileen’s Special Cheesecake of Queens, Inc. d/b/a Eileen’s Special Cheesecake, and 17 Cleveland Place, LLC, who must follow the court’s settlement-discussion and joint-letter deadlines.
What happened
In Velasquez v. Eileen’s Special Cheesecake of Queens, Inc., Ricardo Velasquez sued Eileen’s Special Cheesecake of Queens, Inc., doing business as Eileen’s Special Cheesecake, and 17 Cleveland Place, LLC. The court assigned the case to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon for all purposes.
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 effort to settle and discuss whether Velasquez has satisfied the basic requirement of having standing to bring the case. They must also discuss whether court-connected mediation or a settlement conference before a magistrate judge would be useful.
Within 45 days after service, the parties must submit a joint letter stating whether they settled. If they did not, the letter must ask the court either to refer the case to mediation or a magistrate judge for a settlement conference, or to hold an initial status conference. Judge Rochon issued these case-management orders; the opinion does not decide the standing issue or the merits of the lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Velasquez v. Eileen's Special Cheesecake Of Queens, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-09302
- Rochon
- Oct. 24, 2023
What the order does
The court stated that the case had been assigned to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon for all purposes. It then issued case-management orders concerning settlement discussions and the next steps in the case.
Settlement meeting and standing
Within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint, the parties must meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith effort to settle. During those discussions, they should consider whether the plaintiff has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing—the requirement that a party be entitled to bring the case in court. The order cites Calcano v. Swarovski North America Ltd. and Harty v. West Point Realty, Inc. on standing.
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.
Required joint letter
Within 15 additional days—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 one of two next steps: referral to mediation or to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference, with the parties stating their preference, or an initial status conference.
Disposition and limits of the ruling
The court issued these orders on October 24, 2023. This opinion does not resolve standing, decide the merits of the claims, or state whether the parties ultimately settle.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.