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

Computer Sciences Corporation v. Endurance Risk Solutions Assurance Co.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:20-cv-01580
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Computer Sciences Corp. v. Endurance Risk Solutions, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the settled action, allowing restoration by May 4, 2022.

Who this affects

Computer Sciences Corporation and the named defendant insurers; the action was discontinued subject to possible restoration by May 4, 2022, and otherwise would be dismissed with prejudice.

What happened

Computer Sciences Corporation and the defendants informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any request to restore the case had to be made by May 4, 2022; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also requested that the clerk terminate docket entry 87.

The detailed version

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

Case
Computer Sciences Corporation v. Endurance Risk Solutions Assurance Co. · No. 1:20-cv-01580
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Apr. 4, 2022

Background

The court received a joint letter stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The discontinuation was without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, provided that any application to restore the action was made by May 4, 2022. If no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also requested that the clerk terminate docket entry 87.

Effect

The case was dismissed conditionally in connection with the parties’ settlement. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms or whether the parties later requested 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.