Brown v. First Savings Bank
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-05189
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Brown v. First Savings Bank: Judge Vyskocil dismissed the settled case, allowing restoration by September 24, 2022, or making dismissal with prejudice.
Carlton Brown and the defendants—First Savings Bank, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, and Trans Union, LLC—were affected by the dismissal and its deadline for seeking restoration.
What happened
In Brown v. First Savings Bank, Carlton Brown told the court that he had reached a settlement in principle with the defendants: First Savings Bank, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, and Trans Union, LLC.
The court dismissed the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if an application was made by September 24, 2022. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered the dismissal on August 24, 2022. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
The detailed version
- Brown v. First Savings Bank · No. 1:22-cv-05189
- Vyskocil
- Aug. 24, 2022
Background
The plaintiff, Carlton Brown, filed a letter informing the court that he had reached a settlement in principle with the defendants. The opinion does not state the claims’ underlying facts or the settlement’s terms.
Disposition
The court ordered that the action be dismissed without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if an application to restore it was made by September 24, 2022. If no such application was made by that date, the court stated that the dismissal would be with prejudice. “Without prejudice” in this context meant that the action could be restored during the specified period; “with prejudice” meant that the dismissal would then bar restoration of the action.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered the order of dismissal on August 24, 2022. The order resolved the case based on the reported settlement in principle and did not decide the underlying claims’ merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.