Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 16, 2025

Niemeier-Wittland v. City of New York

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:24-cv-05076
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Niemeier-Wittland v. City of New York, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after settlement, subject to a restoration deadline.

Who this affects

Baerbel Niemeier-Wittland and the City of New York; the pending action was discontinued based on the parties’ settlement in principle, subject to the stated restoration deadline.

What happened

Baerbel Niemeier-Wittland sued the City of New York, and the mediator informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the action without costs and without prejudice to restoring it if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any request to restore the case had to be made by February 17, 2025; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered the order on January 16, 2025. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

The detailed version

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

Case
Niemeier-Wittland v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-05076
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Jan. 16, 2025

Background

The mediator informed the Southern District of New York that Baerbel Niemeier-Wittland and the City of New York had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not identify the claims or provide the settlement’s terms.

Ruling

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing. The application to restore the action had to be made by February 17, 2025.

The order further states that if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The order was entered on January 16, 2025.

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.