Jacobson v. Empire Diner of NYC, LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-06442
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jacobson v. Empire Diner, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by May 13, 2021, otherwise with prejudice.
Dana Jacobson and defendants 210 Empire LLC doing business as Empire Diner, Empire Diner of NYC, LLC, and 491 Chelsea Apartments, LLC.
What happened
In Jacobson v. Empire Diner of NYC, LLC, Dana Jacobson sued 210 Empire LLC doing business as Empire Diner, Empire Diner of NYC, LLC, and 491 Chelsea Apartments, LLC. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
A court-appointed mediator informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and allowed it to be restored if the parties could not put their settlement into a written agreement and applied to restore the case by May 13, 2021.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Jacobson v. Empire Diner of NYC, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-06442
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 13, 2021
Background
Dana Jacobson was the plaintiff. The defendants were 210 Empire LLC doing business as Empire Diner, Empire Diner of NYC, LLC, and 491 Chelsea Apartments, LLC. The opinion does not state the claims or other facts underlying the lawsuit.
Settlement
The court-appointed mediator informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not provide the settlement's terms.
Ruling
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 the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in a written agreement. Any application to restore the action had to be made by May 13, 2021. The order further states that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be brought again. The court's order resolved the case based on the settlement process and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.