M & M PACKAGING v. MINEO
M & M PACKAGING, INC. v. VINCENT MINEO, JESSICA MINEO, KAREN MINEO, MICHAEL MINEO, NICHOLAS MINEO and JOHN DOES 1–25
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-05739
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
M & M Packaging v. Vincent Mineo: Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by November 6, 2025, before dismissal becomes with prejudice.
M & M Packaging, Inc. and the named defendants were affected because the action was discontinued after the reported settlement in principle, subject to restoration by November 6, 2025, and the case deadlines, conferences, and trial were postponed.
What happened
In M & M Packaging, Inc. v. Vincent Mineo, Jessica Mineo, Karen Mineo, Michael Mineo, Nicholas Mineo and John Does 1–25, the plaintiff told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any request to restore the case had to be made by November 6, 2025; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also postponed all pending deadlines, conferences, and the scheduled trial without setting new dates.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued the order on October 7, 2025. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement terms.
The detailed version
- M & M PACKAGING v. MINEO · No. 1:24-cv-05739
- Vyskocil
- Oct. 7, 2025
Background
The court received a letter from M & M Packaging, Inc. stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or provide the settlement’s terms.
Ruling
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. It was discontinued without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the parties could not memorialize their settlement in writing, provided that an application to restore the action was made by November 6, 2025.
The order states that if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be restored. The court also adjourned all pending deadlines and scheduled conferences without setting new dates, including the November 14, 2025 pretrial conference and the December 1–2, 2025 trial.
Effect
Judge MARY KAY VYSKOCIL’s order ended the action subject to the stated restoration deadline. It did not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.