Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 20, 2025

California Franchise Tax Board v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:24-cv-00683
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

California Franchise Tax Board v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after the parties reached a settlement agreement in principle.

Who this affects

The California Franchise Tax Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver for Signature Bank; the action was discontinued based on the parties’ agreement in principle, subject to the stated restoration deadline and conditions.

What happened

California Franchise Tax Board v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation involved a dispute between the California Franchise Tax Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, acting as receiver for Signature Bank.

The parties told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to resolve the litigation. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or the settlement’s terms.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied the pending motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot and discontinued the action without costs. The case could be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and applied by August 4, 2025; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
California Franchise Tax Board v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation · No. 1:24-cv-00683
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
June 20, 2025

Background The parties filed a letter informing the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to resolve the litigation. The opinion does not explain the underlying claims or provide the proposed settlement’s terms.

Rulings The court denied the pending motion to dismiss at docket entry 31 without prejudice as moot. It also ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing.

The court set August 4, 2025, as the deadline for an application to restore the action. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions at docket entries 31 and 46.

Judge United States District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered the order on June 20, 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.