Abreu v. White Water Gear Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-03604
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Abreu v. White Water Gear, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by October 3, 2022, otherwise with prejudice.
Luigi Abreu, the people he sought to represent, and White Water Gear Inc.; the case was discontinued under the stated settlement-related conditions.
What happened
In Abreu v. White Water Gear Inc., Luigi Abreu told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. Abreu brought the case individually and for others similarly situated.
The court discontinued the case without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if a request was made by October 3, 2022. If no request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also postponed all other dates and deadlines indefinitely.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil warned that the court would not reopen the case merely because Abreu had not received the settlement payment or other required consideration. Any request to restore the case had to state that the parties had not signed a settlement agreement.
The detailed version
- Abreu v. White Water Gear Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03604
- Vyskocil
- Sept. 2, 2022
Background
The court received a letter from Luigi Abreu stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. Abreu was the plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and White Water Gear Inc. was the defendant.
Ruling
The court ordered that the case be discontinued without costs to any party. The discontinuance was without prejudice to restoring the case to the court’s calendar, but an application to restore had to be made by October 3, 2022. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice. The court adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely.
The court also stated that it would not reopen the case merely because Abreu had not yet received the consideration required under the settlement’s terms. Any request to restore the case had to specify that the parties had not signed a settlement agreement.
Effect of the Order
The case was discontinued based on the reported settlement in principle. The order allowed restoration by the stated deadline, but provided that the dismissal would become with prejudice if no timely application was made.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.