Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 10, 2022

Itasca Images, LLC v. Pond5, Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-00736
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

Itasca Images, LLC v. PONDS, INC.: Judge Vyskocil discontinued the settled case, allowing restoration by November 9, 2022; otherwise dismissal would be with prejudice.

Who this affects

Itasca Images, LLC and the defendants in the case were affected by the discontinuance and the November 9, 2022 deadline for seeking restoration.

What happened

In Itasca Images, LLC v. PONDS, INC., the parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the case without costs to either party and allowed either party to ask to restore it to the court’s calendar by November 9, 2022. If no such request was made by then, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also postponed all other dates and deadlines without setting new dates.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered the dismissal order on August 10, 2022.

The detailed version

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

Case
Itasca Images, LLC v. Pond5, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00736
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Aug. 10, 2022

Background

The court received a joint letter stating that Itasca Images, LLC and the defendants had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

Order

The court ordered that the case be discontinued without costs to any party. It allowed the case to be restored to the court’s calendar if an application to restore it was made by November 9, 2022. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice, meaning the case could not be restored through that procedure. The court also adjourned all other dates and deadlines without setting new dates.

Result

The order disposed of the case based on the parties’ settlement in principle, while preserving the possibility of restoring it by the stated deadline. The opinion does not state whether the parties completed a final settlement.

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.