Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 2, 2022

Chalas v. RTZN Brands, LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-04252
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Chalas v. RTZN Brands, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, subject to possible restoration by September 2, 2022.

Who this affects

Ana Chalas, the defendant RTZN Brands LLC, and the other people Chalas represented in the action.

What happened

In Chalas v. RTZN Brands, Ana Chalas told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either 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 September 2, 2022.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request 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
Chalas v. RTZN Brands, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-04252
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Aug. 2, 2022

Background Ana Chalas filed the action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The court received a letter from Chalas stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not provide the underlying claims or the proposed settlement terms.

Ruling 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 September 2, 2022. The order further states that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not then be restored.

Effect The order resolved the case based on the parties’ reported settlement in principle rather than deciding the underlying claims. It did not state whether the settlement was later finalized.

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.