Chamberlain v. Angel Salazar Design LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:25-cv-00274
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Chamberlain v. Angel Salazar Design LLC ended after a settlement in principle, Judge Vyskocil ordered, subject to possible restoration by May 12.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the action. The case could be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and filed an application by May 12, 2025; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
What happened
In Chamberlain v. Angel Salazar Design LLC, the court received a letter stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party 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 May 12, 2025.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. She also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending letter motion.
The detailed version
- Chamberlain v. Angel Salazar Design LLC · No. 1:25-cv-00274
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 7, 2025
Background
Sean Chamberlain and Pamela Andral brought the action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Angel Salazar Design LLC and Angel Salazar. The opinion states that the Court received a letter filed by a plaintiff informing it that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
Order
The Court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. It also ordered that the action could be restored to the Court’s calendar without prejudice if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, provided that an application to restore the action was made by May 12, 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 letter motion pending at ECF No. 15.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the Court discontinued the action based on the reported settlement in principle and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.