Calcano v. Torrid LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-10594
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Calcano v. Torrid LLC, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by April 20, 2020, or dismissal with prejudice.
Marcos Calcano, Torrid LLC, and the persons Calcano sought to represent; the action was discontinued under the stated restoration and dismissal conditions.
What happened
In Calcano v. Torrid LLC, Marcos Calcano brought an action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people against Torrid LLC. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle and asked for a 30-day order. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made by April 20, 2020. She stated that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Calcano v. Torrid LLC · No. 1:19-cv-10594
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 19, 2020
Background
Marcos Calcano sued Torrid LLC on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated. The opinion does not state the claims’ legal basis or describe the underlying dispute.
The parties sent the court a letter dated March 18, 2020, stating that they had reached a settlement in principle. They asked the court to issue a 30-day order. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms or whether the court approved those terms.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The order allowed the action to be restored to the court’s calendar without prejudice if an application to restore it was made by April 20, 2020. The order further stated that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion cites Muze, Inc. v. Digital On Demand, Inc., 356 F.3d 492, 494 n.1 (2d Cir. 2004), in support of this procedure.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.