Brian Courtney Wilson and Love Music Group LLC d/b/a Acer v. Kobalt Music…
Brian Courtney Wilson and Love Music Group LLC d/b/a Acer v. Kobalt Music Services America Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:25-cv-04363
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Wilson v. Kobalt, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after settlement in principle, allowing timely restoration but otherwise making dismissal with prejudice.
Brian Courtney Wilson, Love Music Group LLC d/b/a Acer, and Kobalt Music Services America Inc. The action was discontinued, court dates and deadlines were adjourned indefinitely, and the parties could seek restoration by November 16, 2025 if they could not complete a written settlement.
What happened
Brian Courtney Wilson and Love Music Group LLC d/b/a Acer sued Kobalt Music Services America Inc. The court received a letter stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs and allowed the parties to restore it if they could not put their settlement in writing, as long as they applied by November 16, 2025. If they did not apply by then, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be brought again. The court also postponed all dates and deadlines, including an October 29 conference.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued the order on October 16, 2025. The opinion did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Brian Courtney Wilson and Love Music Group LLC d/b/a Acer v. Kobalt Music… · No. 1:25-cv-04363
- Vyskocil
- Oct. 16, 2025
Background
The defendant filed a letter informing the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the claims or the underlying dispute.
Disposition
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court's calendar if the parties could not memorialize their settlement in writing. Any application to restore the action had to be made by November 16, 2025. The court further ordered that, if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The court adjourned all dates and deadlines indefinitely, including the conference scheduled for October 29, 2025. The order did not resolve the merits of the parties' underlying dispute.
Effect
The action was discontinued based on the reported settlement in principle. The parties retained the stated ability to seek restoration by the deadline if they could not complete a written settlement; otherwise, the dismissal would become with prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.