Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 5, 2024

Lopez v. Nilou Properties LLC

Judge
Garnett
Docket
1:24-cv-01473
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Lopez v. Nilou Properties, Judge Garnett ordered settlement discussions, consideration of standing, and a joint report if the case was not resolved.

Who this affects

Samuel Lopez, Nilou Properties LLC, Zoralie Restaurant Inc., and their counsel or unrepresented parties who must comply with the settlement, reporting, and notice requirements.

What happened

In Lopez v. Nilou Properties LLC and Zoralie Restaurant Inc., the court ordered the parties to meet for at least one hour and try in good faith to settle the case.

The parties must consider whether Samuel Lopez has met the requirement of having standing to sue. If they cannot settle, they must discuss whether mediation or a settlement conference with a magistrate judge would be useful.

Judge Margaret M. Garnett also required a joint letter within 45 days of service reporting whether the case settled and, if not, requesting mediation, a magistrate-judge conference, or an initial status conference. The order did not decide whether Lopez has standing or resolve the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lopez v. Nilou Properties LLC · No. 1:24-cv-01473
Judge
Garnett
Date
Mar. 5, 2024

Order

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 must be a good-faith effort to settle the action.

The parties were directed to consider whether Samuel Lopez satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning whether he is legally entitled to bring the case. The order cited decisions addressing standing but did not decide the issue.

If the parties could not settle the case themselves, 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.

Required Joint Letter and Notice

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.

Counsel who had filed notices of appearance when the order was issued must promptly serve the order and the judge’s Individual Rules on counsel for parties who had not yet appeared, or personally on the party if counsel’s identity was unknown. Those attorneys must file proof of that notice with the court.

Disposition and Scope

This is a case-management and settlement order. It does not rule on standing, the merits of Lopez’s claims, or any defense. The opinion does not state whether the parties ultimately settled.

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.