Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 15, 2025

Moina v. Pjetro Juncaj Home Improvement Inc. and Pietro Juncayj

Full caption

Jaime Moina, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Pjetro Juncaj Home Improvement Inc. and Pietro Juncayj

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-07014
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Jaime Moina v. Pjetro Juncaj Home Improvement Inc., Judge Vyskocil dismissed the action after a settlement in principle, subject to stated restoration conditions.

Who this affects

The dismissal affected Jaime Moina, Pjetro Juncaj Home Improvement Inc., and Pietro Juncayj. The order also addressed the parties’ settlement process and any possible restoration of the action.

What happened

Jaime Moina brought this action against Pjetro Juncaj Home Improvement Inc. and Pietro Juncayj. The court was informed that, with Judge Preska’s assistance, the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and allowed it to be restored if the parties could not put the settlement in writing and sought restoration by October 20, 2025, or if the surrogate court denied settlement approval.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that, if neither condition occurred, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely.

The detailed version

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

Case
Moina v. Pjetro Juncaj Home Improvement Inc. and Pietro Juncayj · No. 1:22-cv-07014
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Sept. 15, 2025

Background The opinion states that Judge Preska assisted the parties in reaching a settlement in principle. It does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms.

Ruling Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if either of two conditions occurred: the parties were unable to memorialize the settlement in writing and applied to restore the action by October 20, 2025, or the surrogate court denied approval of the settlement. If neither condition occurred, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely.

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.