Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 27, 2020

Diaz v. United By Blue Walnut Street LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:18-cv-12388
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Diaz v. United By Blue Walnut Street LLC, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after mediation, allowing restoration by December 29, 2020, or dismissal with prejudice if none is filed.

Who this affects

Edwin Diaz, the other similarly situated persons he identified in the action, and United By Blue Walnut Street LLC were affected by the court’s order discontinuing the action subject to the stated restoration deadline.

What happened

Diaz v. United By Blue Walnut Street LLC involved Edwin Diaz’s action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

A mediator informed the court that the parties participated in court-ordered mediation and reached an agreement on all issues.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the action discontinued without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if an application was made by December 29, 2020. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Diaz v. United By Blue Walnut Street LLC · No. 1:18-cv-12388
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Nov. 27, 2020

Background

Edwin Diaz brought the action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated persons against United By Blue Walnut Street LLC. The opinion does not state the underlying legal claims or the terms of the parties’ agreement.

Mediation and Agreement

The court received a notice from the mediator stating that the parties participated in court-ordered mediation and reached an agreement on all issues.

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 an application to restore it was made by December 29, 2020. The order further stated that, if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice. The opinion does not provide further details about the agreement or the underlying claims.

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.