Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 27, 2022

Quezada v. Beam Suntory Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-04521
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Quezada v. Beam Suntory, Judge Vyskocil dismissed the action after the parties reported a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by November 28, 2022.

Who this affects

Jose Quezada, Beam Suntory Inc., and the people Quezada sought to represent were affected by the conditional dismissal and restoration deadline.

What happened

Jose Quezada brought this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Beam Suntory Inc. The court received Quezada’s letter reporting that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any application to restore the action had to be made by November 28, 2022.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that, if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Quezada v. Beam Suntory Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04521
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Oct. 27, 2022

Background

Jose Quezada sued Beam Suntory Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The opinion states that the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. It does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms.

Court’s Action

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar. Restoration was permitted if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing and if an application to restore the action was made by November 28, 2022.

The order further stated that, if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court did not rule on the merits of the underlying claims or state that it approved the settlement.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered the order of dismissal on October 27, 2022. The action was discontinued subject to the stated restoration deadline; if no timely restoration application was made, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

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.