Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 29, 2025

Velasquez v. Players Theatre Associates LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:24-cv-09570
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Velasquez v. Players Theatre Associates LLC, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration until May 29, 2025.

Who this affects

Ricardo Velasquez and Players Theatre Associates LLC; the action was discontinued subject to the stated deadline for restoring it.

What happened

In Velasquez v. Players Theatre Associates LLC, a mediator told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the case without costs to either party. The case could be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and requested restoration by May 29, 2025. If no request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also adjourned all other dates and deadlines without setting new dates. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Velasquez v. Players Theatre Associates LLC · No. 1:24-cv-09570
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Apr. 29, 2025

Background

The court received a letter from the mediator stating that Ricardo Velasquez and Players Theatre Associates LLC had reached a settlement in principle. The order does not describe the settlement terms or the claims underlying the action.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The order allowed either party to seek restoration of the action to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, but the application had to be made by May 29, 2025. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice. The court also adjourned all other dates and deadlines without setting new dates.

Effect

The order resolved the case based on the reported settlement in principle rather than deciding the underlying claims. It did not state the settlement’s terms.

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.