Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 25, 2022

Bassa v. 1st Stop Staffing Agency, LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:21-cv-11193
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Bassa v. 1st Stop Staffing Agency, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the settled action, allowing restoration by August 25, 2022, or dismissal with prejudice thereafter.

Who this affects

Niloufer Bassa, 1st Stop Staffing Agency, LLC, and Oak Beverages, Inc.

What happened

Bassa v. 1st Stop Staffing Agency involved Niloufer Bassa’s claims against 1st Stop Staffing Agency, LLC and Oak Beverages, Inc. The court said mediation occurred and the parties reached agreement on all claims.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party. It allowed the parties to restore the action to the court’s calendar without prejudice if they could not put their settlement in writing, but only if they applied by August 25, 2022.

Judge Vyskocil ordered that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be restored.

The detailed version

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

Case
Bassa v. 1st Stop Staffing Agency, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-11193
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
July 25, 2022

Background

The court was informed that mediation had been held and that the parties had reached agreement on all claims. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

Order

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The order stated that the action could be restored to the court’s calendar without prejudice if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, provided that an application to restore the action was made by August 25, 2022.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil further ordered that if no application to restore the action was made by August 25, 2022, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.

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.