Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 3, 2024

Toro v. Parodi Holdings, LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:24-cv-01396
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Toro v. Parodi Holdings, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by July 3, 2024.

Who this affects

Andrew Toro, the putative class he sought to represent, and Parodi Holdings, LLC.

What happened

Toro v. Parodi Holdings, LLC involved Andrew Toro’s letter informing the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the claims or settlement terms.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any request to restore the action had to be made by July 3, 2024.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Toro v. Parodi Holdings, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-01396
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
June 3, 2024

Background

Andrew Toro filed the action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The opinion does not state the claims’ legal basis or provide details about the alleged conduct. The court received a letter from Toro informing it that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

Court’s Order

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The order stated that the action could be restored to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, provided that the application to restore the action was made by July 3, 2024.

Effect of the Order

The court further ordered that if no application to restore the action was made by July 3, 2024, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion does not state whether the settlement was ultimately memorialized or whether any application to restore the action was filed.

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.