Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 1, 2021

Angeles v. Goedeker Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:21-cv-00315
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Angeles v. Goedeker Inc., Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by May 3, 2021, otherwise with-prejudice dismissal.

Who this affects

Jenisa Angeles, the similarly situated persons identified in the caption, and Goedeker Inc.; the action was discontinued under the stated restoration and dismissal conditions.

What happened

In Angeles v. Goedeker Inc., Jenisa Angeles brought the action for herself and other similarly situated people against Goedeker Inc. The court received a letter reporting that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court did not decide the underlying claims. Instead, it discontinued the action without costs to either party and allowed either side to seek restoration of the case by May 3, 2021.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that, if no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. She also adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely.

The detailed version

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

Case
Angeles v. Goedeker Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00315
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Apr. 1, 2021

Background

Jenisa Angeles sued Goedeker Inc. on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated. The opinion states that the court received a letter from Angeles informing it that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The order allowed the action to be restored to the court’s calendar if an application to restore it was made by May 3, 2021. If no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely.

The order did not decide the merits of the underlying claims or state the terms of the settlement.

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.