Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 27, 2024

Reyes v. Tai Thai Thailand Home Cooking Inc.

Judge
Garnett
Docket
1:24-cv-02242
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Reyes v. Tai Thai, Judge Garnett ordered settlement discussions and a joint status letter but did not decide the case’s merits.

Who this affects

Mario J. Reyes and the defendants, Tai Thai Thailand Home Cooking Inc., doing business as Chomp Chomp Thai Kitchen, and Maxanne Realty, Inc.; the order also imposes notice and filing duties on counsel who have appeared.

What happened

In Reyes v. Tai Thai Thailand Home Cooking Inc., the court ordered the parties to try to settle the case soon after the defendants are served with the summons and complaint. The order also directed them to discuss whether Mario J. Reyes has legal standing to bring the case.

The parties must meet for at least one hour within 30 days after each defendant is served. If they cannot settle, they must discuss whether court-connected mediation or a settlement conference before a magistrate judge would be useful.

Judge Margaret M. Garnett also ordered the parties to file a joint letter within 45 days after service, reporting whether they settled and, if not, requesting mediation, a magistrate-judge settlement conference, or an initial status conference. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Reyes v. Tai Thai Thailand Home Cooking Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-02242
Judge
Garnett
Date
Mar. 27, 2024

Order

The court ordered the parties to meet and confer—that is, to discuss the case directly—in a good-faith attempt to settle it. The meeting must last at least one hour and must occur within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint on each defendant.

The parties were specifically directed to consider whether Plaintiff Mario J. Reyes has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning whether he is legally entitled to bring the case. The order cites decisions discussing standing. If the parties cannot settle on their own, they must also discuss whether further settlement discussions through the court’s mediation program or before a magistrate judge would be productive.

Required Filing and Notice

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 settled. If they did not settle, the letter must request either referral to mediation or to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference, while stating a preference between those options, or an initial status conference.

Counsel who had filed notices of appearance when the order issued must promptly serve the order and Judge Garnett’s Individual Rules and Practices on counsel or, if necessary, the party personally. They must also file proof of that notice with the court.

Effect of the Order

This is a case-management and settlement order. It does not grant or deny a motion, resolve standing, decide the underlying claims, or enter judgment. The opinion text does not identify the legal claims asserted in the complaint.

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.