Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 15, 2020

Werner v. Envelope City, Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:19-cv-01332
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Werner v. Envelope City, Inc., Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, subject to restoration and later dismissal with prejudice.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, Heidi Werner, and the defendants, including Envelope City, Inc., whose action was discontinued following the parties’ reported settlement in principle.

What happened

In Werner v. Envelope City, Inc., the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and allowed either side to seek restoration of the case by January 15, 2020. The opinion says that if no such application was made, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Judge Vyskocil also stated that the case could be reopened only if no settlement agreement had been executed, and that the court would not retain jurisdiction after an agreement was executed unless it ordered otherwise.

The detailed version

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

Case
Werner v. Envelope City, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-01332
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Dec. 15, 2020

Background

The court received a letter from the parties stating that they had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement terms.

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 15, 2020. The order further stated that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion’s stated restoration deadline—January 15, 2020—comes before the order’s date of December 15, 2020; the court did not explain this apparent date inconsistency.

The court also stated that an application to reopen the case would be approved only if a settlement agreement had not been executed. After an agreement was executed, the court said it would not retain jurisdiction over the case unless it entered an order providing otherwise.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered an order of dismissal under these conditions. The opinion does not state whether a settlement agreement was ultimately executed or whether any party sought to restore or reopen the action.

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.