Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 30, 2021

Vasquez v. Concourse Village, Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:21-cv-02817
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Vasquez v. Concourse Village, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the settled action without costs, allowing restoration by July 31, 2021, otherwise dismissal became with prejudice.

Who this affects

Katherine Vasquez and defendants Concourse Village, Inc., Richard Vazquez, Madison Security Group, and Prestige Management, Inc.; the action was discontinued based on notice of a settlement in principle.

What happened

In Vasquez v. Concourse Village, Inc., the court received notice that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The case involved Katherine Vasquez and defendants Concourse Village, Inc., Richard Vazquez, Madison Security Group, and Prestige Management, Inc.

The case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Lehrburger for settlement purposes. The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar by July 31, 2021. If no request to restore the case was made by that date, the dismissal became with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Vasquez v. Concourse Village, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-02817
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
June 30, 2021

Background

Katherine Vasquez sued Concourse Village, Inc., Richard Vazquez, Madison Security Group, and Prestige Management, Inc. The matter had been referred to Magistrate Judge Lehrburger for settlement purposes. Judge Vyskocil received notice that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not state the claims asserted or the terms of the settlement.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The order allowed the parties to restore the action to the court’s calendar if they made an application to do so by July 31, 2021. The order stated 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 restored through that procedure after the 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.