Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 4, 2022

Quezada v. Petroleum Service Company

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-04516
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Quezada v. Petroleum Service Company, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the settlement case, allowing timely restoration; otherwise, the dismissal becomes with prejudice.

Who this affects

Jose Quezada, Petroleum Service Company, and the similarly situated people identified in the case caption were affected by the settlement-related dismissal and its restoration deadline.

What happened

Jose Quezada brought this case against Petroleum Service Company, and the caption states that he sued individually and on behalf of similarly situated people. The court received a letter saying the parties had reached a settlement.

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 September 6, 2022. The order states that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered the order on August 4, 2022. The order also adjourned all other dates and deadlines without setting a new date.

The detailed version

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

Case
Quezada v. Petroleum Service Company · No. 1:22-cv-04516
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Aug. 4, 2022

Background

Jose Quezada sued Petroleum Service Company individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The court received a letter from Quezada stating that the parties had reached a settlement.

Court’s action

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. The order allowed an application to restore the case if it was made by September 6, 2022. It further stated that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be refiled. All other dates and deadlines were adjourned without a new date.

What the order decided

The court did not decide the underlying claims. It entered a settlement-related dismissal and set the conditions for possible restoration. The order was entered by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil.

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.