Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 6, 2025

Picon v. Clare V., LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:24-cv-09341
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Picon v. Clare V., LLC, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action without prejudice to restoration, making dismissal with prejudice if no application is filed by April 7.

Who this affects

Yelitza Picon, Clare V., LLC, and the people Picon sought to represent in the action were affected by the conditional dismissal and restoration deadline.

What happened

In Picon v. Clare V., LLC, Defendant informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. Yelitza Picon brought the action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated.

The court discontinued the action 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 action had to be made by April 7, 2025.

Judge Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 11.

The detailed version

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

Case
Picon v. Clare V., LLC · No. 1:24-cv-09341
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Mar. 6, 2025

Background

Yelitza Picon brought this putative class action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Clare V., LLC. The court received a joint letter filed by Defendant stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

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, provided that an application to restore the action was made by April 7, 2025.

The court further ordered that if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The Clerk of Court was requested to terminate the motion pending at docket entry 11.

Effect

The order ended the action subject to the stated restoration deadline. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or indicate that the court approved a final settlement.

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.