All Surface Publishing, Inc. v. Universal Music Group
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-06039
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In All Surface Publishing v. Orchard Enterprises, Judge Vyskocil extended the deadline to seek restoration, warning dismissal would be with prejudice if no application was filed.
All Surface Publishing, Inc. and the defendants in the action were affected by the extended deadline. The order also specified that the action would be dismissed with prejudice if no application to restore it was made by June 2, 2025.
What happened
All Surface Publishing, Inc. asked for more time to complete a settlement and file final dismissal papers. The letter said the original deadline was May 2, 2025, and that the defendants consented to the request.
The court extended the deadline for an application to restore the action to June 2, 2025. The court stated that if no application was made by then, the action would be dismissed with prejudice.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered the order on May 1, 2025. The order addressed only the deadline and did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- All Surface Publishing, Inc. v. Universal Music Group · No. 1:24-cv-06039
- Vyskocil
- May 1, 2025
Background
All Surface Publishing, Inc. requested a 30-day extension of the deadline for filing final dismissal papers. Its counsel stated that the parties had not been able to complete their settlement transaction before the original May 2, 2025 deadline. The request also stated that All Surface had not previously sought an extension, that the court had not previously granted or denied one, and that the defendants consented.
Ruling
The court ordered that the deadline for an application to restore the action be extended to June 2, 2025. It stated that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be brought again. The order did not resolve the parties’ underlying dispute or address the merits of any claim.
Effect
The order gave the parties additional time to seek restoration of the action while their settlement transaction remained unfinished. It did not state that the action was dismissed on May 1, 2025; instead, it set a later deadline and specified the consequence if no application was filed by then.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.