Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 29, 2022

Sadowski v. Dotdash Media Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-05434
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Sadowski v. Dotdash Media Inc., Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case, allowing restoration by September 29, 2022, otherwise with prejudice.

Who this affects

Christopher Sadowski and Dotdash Media Inc.; the case was discontinued based on the reported settlement in principle, subject to possible restoration by September 29, 2022.

What happened

In Sadowski v. Dotdash Media Inc., the court received the defendant’s letter stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the case without costs to either party. It allowed either party to ask the court to restore the case by September 29, 2022.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request was filed by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also postponed all other dates and deadlines indefinitely and directed the Clerk to terminate the letter motion at docket entry 15.

The detailed version

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

Case
Sadowski v. Dotdash Media Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-05434
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Aug. 29, 2022

Background

The court stated that it had received a letter from Dotdash Media Inc. reporting that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

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 if an application to restore was made by September 29, 2022. “Without prejudice” in this context meant the case could be restored during that period. The court further ordered that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be restored under that order. All other dates and deadlines were adjourned indefinitely. The Clerk of Court was requested to terminate the letter motion at docket entry 15.

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.