Velasquez v. Mexico Sport Center & Bicycle Repair Corp
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-03273
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Velasquez v. Mexico Sport Center, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a reported settlement in principle, subject to restoration by February 12, 2025, or dismissal with prejudice.
All parties to the action. The case was discontinued without costs, with a possible application to restore it by February 12, 2025; absent such an application, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
What happened
Ricardo Velasquez v. 2320 Hughes BH LLC, Nasser Zar Inc., and Mexico Sport Center & Bicycle Repair involved a letter telling the court that all parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party. The case could be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and applied to restore it by February 12, 2025.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration application was filed by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be brought back.
The detailed version
- Velasquez v. Mexico Sport Center & Bicycle Repair Corp · No. 1:24-cv-03273
- Vyskocil
- Jan. 13, 2025
Background
The court received a letter from Ricardo Velasquez and Defendants 2320 Hughes BH LLC and Nasser Zar Inc. stating that all parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement terms.
Ruling
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The dismissal was without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing and made an application to restore the action by February 12, 2025.
The court further ordered that if no application to restore the action was made by February 12, 2025, the dismissal would be with prejudice. That means the action could not then be restored. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.