Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 15, 2022

Piedra v. Midtown Pizza Corp.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:21-cv-08480
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Piedra v. Midtown Pizza, Judge Vyskocil dismissed the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by September 15, 2022.

Who this affects

Carlos Humberto Piedra, Carlos Castillo, and the named defendants. The action was discontinued subject to the stated deadline and conditions for restoring it.

What happened

In Piedra v. Midtown Pizza Corp., Carlos Humberto Piedra and Carlos Castillo sued Midtown Pizza Corp. and the other named defendants. The court received the mediator’s report 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 September 15, 2022. If no request was made by then, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued the order on August 15, 2022.

The detailed version

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

Case
Piedra v. Midtown Pizza Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-08480
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Aug. 15, 2022

Background

The opinion identifies Carlos Humberto Piedra and Carlos Castillo as the plaintiffs and Midtown Pizza Corp. doing business as La Vera Pizza, Marina Pizza Corp. doing business as La Vera Pizza, 20th Street Pizza Corp. doing business as Lunetta Pizza, Perfecto Pizzeria Corporation doing business as Lunetta Pizza, Khairallah Muhanna, and Khaliil Abualit as the defendants. The court received the mediator’s final report stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. It also ordered that the case could be restored to the court’s calendar without prejudice if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, provided that any application to restore the action was made by September 15, 2022. The order states that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Effect

The order resolved the case based on the reported settlement in principle and did not decide the underlying claims. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil signed the order.

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.