Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v…
Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. John Knopf Flooring, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-04349
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Trustees of New York City Carpenters v. John Knopf Flooring: Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a tentative settlement, allowing restoration by March 24, 2025.
The plaintiffs and defendants were affected because the action was discontinued after they reported a tentative settlement. They could seek to restore the action by March 24, 2025 if they could not put the settlement in writing; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
What happened
In Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. John Knopf Flooring, Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a tentative settlement.
The court canceled the upcoming post-discovery conference and discontinued the case without costs. The court allowed the parties to restore the case if they could not put their settlement in writing, but only if they applied by March 24, 2025.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the dismissal would be with prejudice if no restoration request was filed by that date. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v… · No. 1:24-cv-04349
- Vyskocil
- Feb. 20, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs and defendants notified the court that they had reached a tentative settlement. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
Court’s Order
The court adjourned, or canceled without setting a new date, the post-discovery conference scheduled for February 25, 2025. It discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the parties could not memorialize their settlement in writing. Any application to restore the action had to be made by March 24, 2025.
The court further ordered that if no restoration application was made by March 24, 2025, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The order also warned that violations of the order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, local rules, the court’s individual rules, or discovery and other obligations could lead to sanctions, including monetary penalties, dismissal, or limits on claims, defenses, arguments, or evidence.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil discontinued the action under the stated settlement-related conditions. The court did not rule on the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.