Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 10, 2021

Rubenstein v. Simplicity Esports & Gaming Co.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:21-cv-00191
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rubenstein v. Simplicity Esports, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by July 9, 2021.

Who this affects

Mark Rubenstein, the defendants, and Simplicity Esports & Gaming Co. as nominal defendant; the action was discontinued subject to the settlement-restoration terms.

What happened

In Rubenstein v. Simplicity Esports & Gaming Co., the court received a letter stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. Simplicity Esports & Gaming Co. was identified as the nominal defendant, and K2 Principal Fund, L.P., and others were defendants.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if the parties could not document their settlement in an agreement. Any request to restore the action had to be made by July 9, 2021. If no request was made by then, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also asked the Clerk of Court to close all open motions. The order was dated June 10, 2021.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rubenstein v. Simplicity Esports & Gaming Co. · No. 1:21-cv-00191
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
June 10, 2021

Background

The court received a letter from the defendants reporting that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The caption identifies Mark Rubenstein as the plaintiff, K2 Principal Fund, L.P., and others as defendants, and Simplicity Esports & Gaming Co. as the nominal defendant.

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 an agreement. The application to restore the action had to be made by July 9, 2021. The order stated that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also requested that the Clerk of Court close all open motions.

Effect

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil’s order ended the action subject to the stated restoration deadline. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or state whether the parties later completed a settlement agreement.

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.