Isakov v. Mykita Shop, LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:25-cv-02144
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Isakov v. Mykita Shop, LLC, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by July 14, 2025.
Simon Isakov, Mykita Shop, LLC, and the persons identified in the caption as similarly situated to Isakov.
What happened
In Isakov v. Mykita Shop, LLC, Simon Isakov brought the action against Mykita Shop, LLC on behalf of himself and others described as similarly situated. The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any request to restore the action had to be made by July 14, 2025.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also ordered that all other dates and deadlines be postponed indefinitely. If no request to restore the action was made by July 14, 2025, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The order did not address the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
The detailed version
- Isakov v. Mykita Shop, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-02144
- Vyskocil
- June 13, 2025
Background
The caption identifies Simon Isakov as the plaintiff, acting on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and Mykita Shop, LLC as the defendant. The opinion states that the parties sent the court a letter reporting that they had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement terms.
Court’s Order
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. It also ordered that the case could be restored to the court’s calendar without prejudice—that is, the parties could seek to reopen the action under the conditions stated in the order—if they were unable to memorialize the settlement in writing and filed an application to restore the action by July 14, 2025.
If no application to restore the action was made by that date, the order stated that the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be reopened through that restoration procedure. The court adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil 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.