Jones v. Enrico Puglisi, Ltd.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-11017
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jones v. Enrico Puglisi, Ltd., Judge Tarnofsky scheduled a settlement conference and directed the parties to address standing.
Damon Jones and Enrico Puglisi, Ltd., as well as their counsel and any corporate representative attending the settlement conference.
What happened
In Jones v. Enrico Puglisi, Ltd., the court scheduled a settlement conference for March 22, 2024, after the case was referred for settlement.
The parties must submit required materials, meet for at least one hour to try to settle the case, and consider whether Jones has standing to sue. The order also addresses attendance by a corporate decision-maker and requests to hold the conference remotely because of hardship.
Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky issued the order. It scheduled settlement proceedings but did not decide whether Jones has standing or resolve the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Enrico Puglisi, Ltd. · No. 1:23-cv-11017
- Analisa Torres
- Mar. 1, 2024
Background
Judge Analisa Torres referred the case to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for settlement on February 28, 2024. The referral was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky on February 29, 2024.
Order
The court scheduled a settlement conference for March 22, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 9B at 500 Pearl Street in New York. If that date was inconvenient, counsel could contact the judge's chambers by March 8 to propose three alternative March dates.
The parties were ordered to complete an ex parte settlement conference summary report and prepare pre-conference submissions under the judge's individual practice rules. Those submissions were due by March 15 at 5:00 p.m. Any corporate party had to send a person with authority to make settlement decisions. A party for whom in-person attendance was a hardship could submit a letter explaining why the conference should be held remotely.
Before the conference, the parties were required to meet and confer for at least one hour in a good-faith effort to settle the case. They were instructed to consider whether Damon Jones had satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning a sufficient legal connection to bring the case. The order did not decide the standing issue or the underlying dispute.
Disposition
The court ordered settlement procedures and scheduled the conference. The order did not grant or deny a merits motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.