Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 3, 2022

Liu v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:21-cv-10692
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Liu v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Judge Vyskocil dismissed the action without prejudice to restoration by July 8, 2022; otherwise, dismissal becomes with prejudice.

Who this affects

Yong Feng Liu and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation; the action was dismissed, subject to restoration by July 8, 2022 if the parties could not put their settlement in writing.

What happened

In Liu v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Toyota told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The court therefore ended the case without deciding the underlying dispute.

The dismissal was without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring the case to the court’s calendar if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any request to restore the case had to be made by July 8, 2022.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no timely restoration request was made, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Liu v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation · No. 1:21-cv-10692
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
June 3, 2022

Background

The court received a letter from Toyota Motor Credit Corporation stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be dismissed without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing. The application to restore the action had to be made by July 8, 2022. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Effect

The order ended the case based on the reported settlement in principle and did not decide the underlying legal dispute. It preserved a limited opportunity to restore the action before the stated 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.