Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 4, 2022

Keung v. 99 Cents Fresh Pizza Canal St Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:21-cv-07315
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Keung v. 99 Cents Fresh Pizza Canal St Inc., Judge Vyskocil discontinued the settled action, allowing restoration by March 7, 2022.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and defendants, whose action was discontinued after the mediator reported that they had settled all issues. The court did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

What happened

In Keung v. 99 Cents Fresh Pizza Canal St Inc., the mediator informed the court that the parties had reached an agreement resolving all issues.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and allowed either side to seek restoration to the court’s calendar by March 7, 2022. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also stated that the court would not retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely.

The detailed version

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

Case
Keung v. 99 Cents Fresh Pizza Canal St Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07315
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Feb. 4, 2022

Background

The mediator informed the court that the parties had reached an agreement on all issues. The opinion does not describe 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 March 7, 2022. The order states that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also stated that it would not retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely.

Effect

The case was closed subject to the stated deadline for seeking restoration. The opinion does not identify the settlement terms or explain which party, if any, would be responsible for seeking restoration.

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.