Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 3, 2024

Calcano v. Growgeneration Corp.

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:23-cv-11312
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Calcano v. Growgeneration, Judge Rochon ordered the parties to pursue settlement discussions and report whether they settled.

Who this affects

Marcos Calcano and GrowGeneration Corp.; the order also concerns the individuals described in the caption as others similarly situated.

What happened

In Calcano v. Growgeneration Corp., Marcos Calcano brought an action on behalf of himself and others described as similarly situated. The order does not explain the claims or decide whether the case may proceed.

The parties must meet for at least one hour within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint, or after waiving service, to make a good-faith attempt to settle. They must consider whether Calcano has established the required legal standing and whether court-connected mediation or a settlement conference with a magistrate judge would be useful.

Within 15 more days, the parties must jointly tell the court whether they settled. If not, they must ask the court either to refer the case to mediation or a magistrate judge, stating their preference, or to schedule an initial status conference. Judge Rochon entered this order on January 3, 2024.

The detailed version

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

Case
Calcano v. Growgeneration Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-11312
Judge
Rochon
Date
Jan. 3, 2024

Order

The court ordered the parties to meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith attempt to settle the action. The meeting must occur within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint, or alternatively within 30 days after waiver of service.

Standing and Further Settlement Discussions

The parties must discuss whether Marcos Calcano has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning the legal requirement that a person be entitled to bring the case in federal court. The court cited Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd., 36 F.4th 68, 77–78 (2d Cir. 2022), and Harty v. W. Point Realty, Inc., 28 F.4th 435, 443–44 (2d Cir. 2022). If the parties cannot settle on their own, they must also discuss whether further discussions through the 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, or alternatively 45 days after waiver of service—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.

What the Order Did Not Decide

The order does not decide the merits of the action, whether Calcano has standing, whether the action may proceed on behalf of others, or whether the parties reached a settlement. Judge Rochon entered a case-management and settlement order rather than ruling on those issues.

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.