Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 13, 2025

Delacruz v. Diversified Products, Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:24-cv-08815
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Delacruz v. Diversified Products, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by June 13, 2025, before dismissal becomes with prejudice.

Who this affects

Emanuel Delacruz, the other people he sought to represent, and Diversified Products, Inc.; the case was discontinued following the parties’ settlement in principle, subject to the stated restoration deadline.

What happened

In Delacruz v. Diversified Products, Emanuel Delacruz brought the action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the case without costs to either party. It allowed the parties to restore the case to the court’s calendar if they could not put the settlement in writing, but they had to apply by June 13, 2025.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request was filed 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
Delacruz v. Diversified Products, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-08815
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
May 13, 2025

Background

Emanuel Delacruz filed the action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people against Diversified Products, Inc. The opinion says the parties sent the court a letter stating that they had reached a settlement in principle. It does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

Court’s action

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar. Restoration was permitted if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing and if they filed an application to restore the action by June 13, 2025.

The order states that if no such application was made by June 13, 2025, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice. The court also adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered the order on May 13, 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.