Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 12, 2022

Zurich North America, Inc. v. M/V Johannes Maersk

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:21-cv-02327
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Zurich North America v. M/V Johannes Maersk, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the settled action, allowing restoration by August 12, 2022, before dismissal with prejudice.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, Zurich North America, Inc. and Unisea, Inc., and the defendants, M/V Johannes Maersk and Maersk A/S, were affected by the discontinuance and the deadline for restoring the action.

What happened

In Zurich North America, Inc. v. M/V Johannes Maersk, the plaintiffs told the court that the parties 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 August 12, 2022.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that, if no request to restore the case was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Zurich North America, Inc. v. M/V Johannes Maersk · No. 1:21-cv-02327
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
July 12, 2022

Background

The plaintiffs informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the settlement terms or the underlying claims.

Court’s action

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any 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 court required any application to restore the action to be made by August 12, 2022.

Effect of the order

The court stated that if no application to restore the action was made by August 12, 2022, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion does not decide the parties’ underlying dispute on its merits.

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.