Ortega v. Diaspora Tea & Herb Company, LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-01546
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ortega v. Diaspora Tea, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by July 11, 2022.
Juan Ortega, Diaspora Tea & Herb Company, LLC, and the others similarly situated whom Ortega sought to represent were affected by the discontinuance and the deadline for seeking restoration.
What happened
In Ortega v. Diaspora Tea & Herb Company, LLC, Juan Ortega told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms.
The court discontinued the case without costs to either party. The case could be restored to the court’s calendar if an application was made by July 11, 2022.
Judge Vyskocil ordered that, if no restoration application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also postponed all other dates and deadlines without setting new dates.
The detailed version
- Ortega v. Diaspora Tea & Herb Company, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01546
- Vyskocil
- June 9, 2022
Background
The court received a letter from Juan Ortega stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms or explain whether the court approved the settlement.
Order
The court ordered that the case be discontinued without costs to any party. It allowed either side to seek restoration of the case to the court’s calendar by July 11, 2022. The order states that the dismissal would be with prejudice if no application to restore the case was made by that date. A dismissal with prejudice generally bars the action from being brought again, but the opinion specifically describes that consequence as applying if no timely restoration application was made. The court also adjourned all other dates and deadlines without setting new dates.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered an order of dismissal based on the reported settlement in principle. The court did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.