Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 9, 2024

Norris v. Ritual Vintage Inc

Judge
Garnett
Docket
1:23-cv-09071
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Norris v. Ritual Vintage Inc., Judge Garnett ordered the parties to discuss settlement and standing, then report whether they settled.

Who this affects

The parties in the action, including Namel Norris and Ritual Vintage Inc., and the lawyers who had appeared or were responsible for notifying parties or their counsel.

What happened

In Namel Norris v. Ritual Vintage Inc., the court ordered the parties to meet for at least one hour by May 9, 2024, and make a good-faith effort to settle the case. They were told to discuss whether Norris satisfied the requirement to show a sufficient legal stake in the case.

If the parties could not settle, they also had to discuss whether mediation or a settlement conference with a magistrate judge would be useful. By May 24, 2024, they had to file a joint letter stating whether they had settled and, if not, asking either for mediation or a settlement conference or for an initial status conference.

Judge Margaret M. Garnett also directed lawyers who had appeared to notify other parties or their lawyers of the order and the court’s rules. The order did not decide the standing issue or the merits of the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Norris v. Ritual Vintage Inc · No. 1:23-cv-09071
Judge
Garnett
Date
Apr. 9, 2024

Order

The court ordered the parties to meet and confer for at least one hour by May 9, 2024, in a good-faith effort to settle the action. During those discussions, the parties were instructed to consider whether the plaintiff had satisfied the threshold requirement of standing, meaning a legally sufficient connection to the dispute that permits a party to bring the case.

Further Settlement Procedures

If the parties could not settle on their own, they were also required to discuss whether additional settlement discussions through the court’s mediation program or before a magistrate judge would be productive at that time. By May 24, 2024, the parties had to submit a joint letter stating whether they had settled. If they had not, the letter had to request either referral to mediation or a magistrate judge for a settlement conference, while indicating which option they preferred, or an initial status conference.

Notice to Other Parties

Counsel who had appeared by the date of the order were directed to notify counsel for parties who had not appeared by serving them with the order and the court’s Individual Rules and Practices. If counsel did not know the identity of another party’s lawyer, counsel had to send those materials directly to that party. Counsel also had to file proof of the notice with the court.

What the Order Decided

This was a case-management and settlement order. It did not decide whether the plaintiff had standing, whether any claim was legally valid, or which side would prevail. Judge Margaret M. Garnett signed the order on April 9, 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.