Mejia v. Louisville Vegan Jerky Co. L.L.C
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-05355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mejia v. Louisville Vegan Jerky Co. LLC, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by September 29, 2022.
Richard Mejia, the people he sought to represent, and Louisville Vegan Jerky Co. LLC were affected by the discontinuation of the case and the deadline for seeking restoration.
What happened
Richard Mejia brought this case individually and for others similarly situated against Louisville Vegan Jerky Co. LLC. The court received Mejia’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 side to ask to restore the case to the court’s calendar by September 29, 2022; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
Judge Vyskocil also said the court would not reopen the case merely because Mejia had not received the settlement consideration. The court adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely and terminated the letter motion.
The detailed version
- Mejia v. Louisville Vegan Jerky Co. L.L.C · No. 1:22-cv-05355
- Vyskocil
- Aug. 29, 2022
Background
Richard Mejia sued Louisville Vegan Jerky Co. LLC individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The opinion states that the court received a letter from Mejia reporting that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
Court’s ruling
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 it was made by September 29, 2022. The order further states that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice, meaning the case could not be reopened through that restoration procedure.
The court said it would not reopen the case merely because Mejia had not yet received the consideration required under the settlement terms. Any request to restore the case had to state that the parties had not signed a settlement agreement. The court adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely and directed the clerk to terminate the letter motion at docket entry 10. The opinion does not decide the merits of Mejia’s claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.