Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 22, 2021

Diaz v. HNTB Corporation

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:20-cv-07130
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

Judge Vyskocil discontinued Diaz v. HNTB Corporation after a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by April 22, 2021, or dismissal with prejudice.

Who this affects

Rebeca Diaz, HNTB Corporation, and Kim Dorant were affected. The action was discontinued without costs, with a limited opportunity for restoration by April 22, 2021; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

What happened

In Diaz v. HNTB Corporation, Plaintiff Rebeca Diaz and Defendants HNTB Corporation and Kim Dorant reached a settlement in principle, according to the court-appointed mediator.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and allowed the parties to restore it if they could not put their agreement in writing, provided they applied by April 22, 2021.

United States District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no timely restoration application was made, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Diaz v. HNTB Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-07130
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Mar. 22, 2021

Background

The court-appointed mediator informed the court that Plaintiff Rebeca Diaz and Defendants HNTB Corporation and Kim Dorant had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement's terms.

Ruling

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court's calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their agreement in writing. The court required any application to restore the action to be made by April 22, 2021. The order further stated that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Effect

The order ended the case based on the reported settlement in principle rather than deciding the underlying claims. It left open a limited opportunity to restore the action if the parties could not put their agreement in writing and complied with the April 22 deadline.

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.