Cruz v. Peacock Alley, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-04580
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Cruz v. Peacock Alley, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after the parties reported a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by December 9, 2020.
Shael Cruz, the people he sought to represent, and Peacock Alley, Inc.; the action was discontinued subject to the restoration procedure and deadline stated in the order.
What happened
In Cruz v. Peacock Alley, Inc., the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. The case was brought by Shael Cruz for himself and others similarly situated against Peacock Alley, Inc.
The court canceled the scheduled initial pretrial conference. It discontinued the action without costs and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made by December 9, 2020. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued the order on November 9, 2020. The order did not describe the settlement terms or decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. Peacock Alley, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04580
- Vyskocil
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Shael Cruz brought this action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Peacock Alley, Inc. The parties informed the court by letter that they had reached a settlement in principle.
Court’s Action
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil canceled the initial pretrial conference scheduled for November 10, 2020. 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 an application to restore it was made by December 9, 2020.
The court further stated that if no restoration application was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice generally bars the action from being refiled, while the order’s initial dismissal allowed the parties to seek restoration during the specified period.
What the Order Decided
The order disposed of the case based on the parties’ reported settlement in principle. It did not state the settlement’s terms and did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.