Chalas v. Running Supply, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-03966
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Chalas v. Running Supply, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by October 11, 2022.
Ana Chalas and Running Supply, Inc.; the caption also identifies Chalas as acting on behalf of all others similarly situated.
What happened
In Chalas v. Running Supply, Inc., Ana Chalas told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court did not describe the claims, the settlement’s terms, or whether a settlement agreement had been signed. It noted that Chalas had sued individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil discontinued the case without costs to any party and allowed either side to seek restoration by October 11, 2022. If no request was made by then, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also said it would not reopen the case merely because Chalas had not received the settlement consideration.
The detailed version
- Chalas v. Running Supply, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03966
- Vyskocil
- Sept. 9, 2022
Background
The court received a letter from Ana Chalas stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the proposed settlement’s terms. The caption identifies Chalas as suing individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
Court’s 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 was made by October 11, 2022. The order stated that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice. All other dates and deadlines were adjourned indefinitely.
The court also warned that it would not reopen the case merely because Chalas had not yet received the consideration required under the settlement’s terms. Any request to restore the case had to state that the parties had not signed a settlement agreement.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.