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

Robles v. Capri Holdings 2 LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:24-cv-07658
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Robles v. Capri Holdings 2 LLC, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after the parties reported a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by May 16, 2025.

Who this affects

Primitivo Robles, the similarly situated people he sought to represent, and Capri Holdings 2 LLC d/b/a Budr Cannabis were affected by the conditional dismissal and settlement-related deadline.

What happened

In Robles v. Capri Holdings 2 LLC, Primitivo Robles brought the action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people. The parties told the court that they 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 action had to be made by May 16, 2025.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that, if no request to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also postponed all other dates and deadlines indefinitely.

The detailed version

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

Case
Robles v. Capri Holdings 2 LLC · No. 1:24-cv-07658
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Apr. 16, 2025

Background

Primitivo Robles sued Capri Holdings 2 LLC, doing business as Budr Cannabis, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated people. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims. The parties sent the court a letter stating that they had reached a settlement in principle.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The discontinuance 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 May 16, 2025.

Effect

The order stated that if no application to restore the action was made by May 16, 2025, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil signed the order on April 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.