Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 19, 2021

Clarkson Recovery Corp. v. Ryzinski

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:20-cv-04336
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Clarkson Recovery Corp. v. Ryzinski, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by May 19, 2021.

Who this affects

Clarkson Recovery Corp., Bolek Ryzinski, and Lukas Macniak; the action was discontinued subject to the court’s restoration deadline.

What happened

In Clarkson Recovery Corp. v. Ryzinski, Clarkson Recovery Corp. 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 an application was made by May 19, 2021. If no application was made by then, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending letter motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Clarkson Recovery Corp. v. Ryzinski · No. 1:20-cv-04336
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Apr. 19, 2021

Background

Clarkson Recovery Corp. told the court by letter that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or 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 an application to restore it was made by May 19, 2021. The order states that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be restored. The court also adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the letter motion at docket entry 37.

Effect

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil’s order ended the action subject to the stated restoration deadline. The opinion does not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.

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.