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

Brain v. The Execu-Search Group, LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-08219
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Brain v. The Execu-Search Group, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by September 4, 2024.

Who this affects

Katie Brain, the proposed similarly situated parties she sought to represent, and The Execu-Search Group, LLC. The action was discontinued, subject to possible restoration by September 4, 2024, and the order states that the dismissal would be with prejudice if no timely restoration request was made.

What happened

In Brain v. The Execu-Search Group, LLC, Plaintiff Katie Brain told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and allowed it to be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and applied by September 4, 2024.

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

The detailed version

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

Case
Brain v. The Execu-Search Group, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-08219
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Aug. 5, 2024

Background

Katie Brain, individually and for others similarly situated, sued The Execu-Search Group, LLC. The opinion does not describe the claims or the proposed settlement's terms. Brain informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court's calendar. Restoration was permitted if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing and made an application to restore the action by September 4, 2024.

Effect of the Order

The order states that if no application to restore the action was made by September 4, 2024, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion does not state whether the parties later finalized their settlement or whether anyone requested restoration.

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.