Paguada v. Toybox Labs, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-07696
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Paguada v. Toybox Labs, Inc., Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by January 18, 2021.
Dilenia Paguada and the putative group of similarly situated people she represented, as well as Toybox Labs, Inc.; the action was discontinued subject to the January 18, 2021 restoration deadline.
What happened
Paguada v. Toybox Labs, Inc. was brought by Dilenia Paguada on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The court received a letter from Toybox Labs stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court ordered the action discontinued without costs to either party. The case could be restored to the court’s calendar if an application was made by January 18, 2021; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued the order on December 2, 2020. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms.
The detailed version
- Paguada v. Toybox Labs, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-07696
- Vyskocil
- Dec. 2, 2020
Background
Dilenia Paguada brought the action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. The court received a letter from Toybox Labs, Inc. stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not provide the claims, the settlement terms, or any explanation of whether a class had been certified.
Court’s action
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 January 18, 2021. The order further stated that, if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. “With prejudice” means the action could not be brought again. The opinion cites Muze, Inc. v. Digital On Demand, Inc. for this procedure.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered an order of dismissal on December 2, 2020. The order did not decide the underlying claims; it discontinued the action based on the parties’ reported settlement in principle, subject to the stated restoration deadline.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.