Contreras v. The Convertible Castle, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-09306
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Contreras v. The Convertible Castle, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the settled action, allowing restoration by March 10, 2022, otherwise dismissal became with prejudice.
Yensy Contreras, The Convertible Castle, Inc., and the action’s proposed group of similarly situated persons.
What happened
In Contreras v. The Convertible Castle, Inc., Yensy Contreras sued individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and the defendant reported that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and allowed either side to seek restoration of the case by March 10, 2022. The order did not describe the settlement’s terms.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that, if no restoration request was made by March 10, 2022, the dismissal would be with prejudice. She also adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Contreras v. The Convertible Castle, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09306
- Vyskocil
- Feb. 8, 2022
Background
Yensy Contreras brought the action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against The Convertible Castle, Inc. The opinion states that the court received a letter from the defendant reporting that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms.
Order
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The order allowed the action to be restored to the court’s calendar if an application to restore it was made by March 10, 2022. The order states that, if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. All other dates and deadlines were adjourned indefinitely.
Disposition
The court entered an order of dismissal based on the reported settlement in principle. The dismissal was initially without prejudice to restoration by the stated deadline, and it would become with prejudice if no timely restoration application was made.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.