Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 4, 2024

Toro v. Magness NYC, Inc.

Judge
Tarnofsky
Docket
1:24-cv-01394
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Toro v. Magness NYC, Inc., Judge Tarnofsky ordered the parties to discuss settlement, consider standing, and report their plans to the court.

Who this affects

Andrew Toro, the people he seeks to represent, and Magness NYC, Inc., because the order requires the parties to discuss settlement and standing and to report their next steps to the court.

What happened

In Toro v. Magness NYC, Inc., Andrew Toro sued Magness NYC, Inc. on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The order does not decide the claims or whether the case may proceed.

Within 30 days after the summons and complaint are served, the parties must meet for at least one hour and make a good-faith effort to settle. They must discuss whether Toro has met the basic requirement of standing to bring the case and, if they cannot settle, whether court-connected mediation or another settlement conference would help.

Within 45 days after service, the parties must send a joint letter telling the court whether they settled. If not, they must ask the court to order mediation, schedule a settlement conference, or set an initial case-management conference. Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky issued these instructions.

The detailed version

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

Case
Toro v. Magness NYC, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-01394
Judge
Tarnofsky
Date
Mar. 4, 2024

Order and Background

Andrew Toro brought this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Magness NYC, Inc. The opinion is an order concerning settlement discussions and the next procedural steps. It does not resolve the underlying claims.

Required Settlement Discussion

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

The parties must also discuss whether Toro has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning the legal basis for bringing the case. The order cites Calcano v. Swarovski North America Ltd. and Harty v. West Point Realty, Inc. on that issue. If the parties cannot settle on their own, they must discuss whether further discussions through the court’s mediation program or before Judge Tarnofsky would be productive at that time.

Joint Letter and Disposition

Within 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 to do one of three things: refer the case to mediation, set a settlement-conference date, or proceed with an initial case-management conference.

The court did not decide standing, the merits of Toro’s claims, or any other disputed issue. Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky entered the settlement and case-management requirements on March 4, 2024.

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.