Contreras v. Opensky Project, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-00294
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Contreras v. Opensky Project, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by July 22, 2022.
Yensy Contreras, Opensky Project, Inc., and the similarly situated people represented in the complaint were affected by the discontinuance and its restoration deadline.
What happened
Contreras v. Opensky Project, Inc. involved Yensy Contreras, who sued individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. Contreras told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle; the opinion does not describe its terms.
The court discontinued the case without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if an application was made by July 22, 2022. The court also adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no application to restore the case was made by July 22, 2022, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Contreras v. Opensky Project, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00294
- Vyskocil
- June 22, 2022
Background
Yensy Contreras sued Opensky Project, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The court received a letter from Contreras stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms or state whether the court approved it.
Ruling
The court ordered that the case be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the case to the court’s calendar if an application to restore it was made by July 22, 2022. The court adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely.
The order further states that if no application to restore the case was made by July 22, 2022, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be restored under that order. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil did not rule on the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.