Chalas v. Airhawk International, LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-04195
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Chalas v. Airhawk International, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by October 10, 2022.
Ana Chalas and Airhawk International, LLC, as well as the putative group of similarly situated plaintiffs identified in the caption.
What happened
Ana Chalas sued Airhawk International, LLC, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The plaintiff told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court discontinued the case without costs to either party and allowed it to be restored to the court’s calendar if an application was made by October 10, 2022. If no application was made by then, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also said it would not reopen the case merely because the plaintiff had not received the settlement consideration.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that any request to restore the case must state that the parties had not signed a settlement agreement. The court also adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Chalas v. Airhawk International, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-04195
- Vyskocil
- Sept. 8, 2022
Background
The caption identifies Ana Chalas as the plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Airhawk International, LLC as the defendant. The court received a letter from the plaintiff stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
Order
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 October 10, 2022. The order states that 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 the plaintiff had not yet received the consideration required under the settlement agreement. Any request to restore the case had to specify that the parties had not signed a settlement agreement.
Disposition
The court entered an order of dismissal based on the reported settlement in principle. It did not decide the underlying claims. The case could be restored if the required application was made by October 10, 2022; otherwise, the order provided that the dismissal would be with prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.