Laman v. Gear Patrol, LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:25-cv-02070
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Laman v. Gear Patrol, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after the parties reported a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by June 23, 2025.
Tim Laman and Gear Patrol, LLC, along with the other named defendants, were affected by the dismissal and its deadline for seeking restoration.
What happened
In Laman v. Gear Patrol, LLC, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
Judge Vyskocil ordered the case discontinued without costs to either side. The parties could ask to restore the case if they could not put their settlement in writing, but they had to do so by June 23, 2025.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also ordered that, if no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court postponed all other dates and deadlines indefinitely and directed the clerk to close the related letter motion.
The detailed version
- Laman v. Gear Patrol, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-02070
- Vyskocil
- May 22, 2025
Background
The parties informed the court by letter that they had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not state the nature of the underlying claims or the terms of the proposed settlement.
Order
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 and an application to restore the action was made by June 23, 2025.
The court further ordered that, if no application to restore the action was made by June 23, 2025, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be revived through that restoration procedure. All other dates and deadlines were adjourned indefinitely. The clerk was requested to terminate the letter motion at ECF No. 15.
Disposition
The court entered an order of dismissal based on the parties’ reported settlement in principle. It did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.