Agostini v. Sporty & Rich, LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:25-cv-00453
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Agostini v. Sporty & Rich, LLC, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by April 28, 2025.
Lunique Agostini and Sporty & Rich, LLC; the opinion identifies Agostini as acting for herself and others similarly situated, but does not state that a class was certified.
What happened
In Agostini v. Sporty & Rich, LLC, Lunique Agostini brought an action on behalf of herself and others described as similarly situated against Sporty & Rich, LLC. The court received Agostini’s letter reporting that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms. It states only that the parties had not yet memorialized their settlement in writing.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the action discontinued without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any application to restore had to be made by April 28, 2025; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Agostini v. Sporty & Rich, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-00453
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 28, 2025
Background
Lunique Agostini filed the action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Sporty & Rich, LLC. The opinion does not identify the claims or provide additional factual background.
Settlement and Order
The court received a letter from Agostini stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion indicates that the settlement had not yet been put into a written agreement.
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The action could be restored to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, but an application to restore had to be made by April 28, 2025. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be restored under the order.
Disposition
The court discontinued the action without costs and without prejudice to restoring it by April 28, 2025. The order states that the dismissal would be with prejudice if no timely restoration application were made.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.