Gulf Island Shipyards, LLC v. Mediterranean Shipping Company USA Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-01018
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gulf Island Shipyards v. Mediterranean Shipping Company USA, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the settled case, allowing restoration by August 23, 2024, or dismissal with prejudice.
Gulf Island Shipyards, LLC and the defendants—Mediterranean Shipping Company (USA), Inc., as agent for MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A., Geneva, Martin Bencher USA, LLC, and Martin Bencher (Scandinavia) A/S—were affected by the discontinuance and the deadline for restoring the action.
What happened
Gulf Island Shipyards, LLC v. Mediterranean Shipping Company USA Inc. involved a letter from Gulf Island Shipyards telling the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement terms.
The court discontinued the case without costs to any 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 case had to be made by August 23, 2024. If no request was made by then, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered the order on July 9, 2024. The order resolved the case based on the parties’ reported settlement process and did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Gulf Island Shipyards, LLC v. Mediterranean Shipping Company USA Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01018
- Vyskocil
- July 9, 2024
Background
The court received a letter filed by Plaintiff Gulf Island Shipyards, LLC stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or provide the terms of the proposed settlement.
Order
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The order also allowed the parties to ask the court to restore the action to its calendar if they were unable to memorialize, or put into writing, their settlement. That application had to be made by August 23, 2024.
The order states that if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be reopened through that restoration procedure. The court did not rule on the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.