Environment Solutions Associates Group, LLC v. Conopco, Inc
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-10699
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Environment Solutions Associates Group v. Conopco, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after the parties reported a settlement in principle, subject to stated conditions.
Environment Solutions Associates Group, LLC and Conopco, Inc., doing business as Unilever; the action was discontinued based on the parties’ reported settlement, subject to possible restoration by December 14, 2022.
What happened
Environment Solutions Associates Group, LLC sued Conopco, Inc., doing business as Unilever. The opinion says the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle, but it does not describe the underlying claims or settlement terms.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. The case could be restored to the court’s calendar if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and applied for restoration by December 14, 2022.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no timely restoration application was made, the dismissal would become with prejudice. The court did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Environment Solutions Associates Group, LLC v. Conopco, Inc · No. 1:20-cv-10699
- Vyskocil
- Nov. 14, 2022
Background
Environment Solutions Associates Group, LLC brought this action against Conopco, Inc., doing business as Unilever. The court received a letter from the plaintiff stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not identify the claims or provide the terms of the proposed settlement.
Ruling
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 if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing. Any application to restore the action had to be made by December 14, 2022. The order further stated that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion therefore resolved the case conditionally based on the reported settlement rather than deciding the underlying legal dispute.
Effect
The parties’ reported settlement led to the discontinuation of the action. The court’s order preserved the possibility of restoring the case during the stated period, but it provided that the dismissal would become with prejudice if no timely restoration application was filed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.