Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 20, 2022

Carrico v. Navico, Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-08187
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Carrico v. Navico, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by January 23, 2023.

Who this affects

Joyce Carrico, the others she sought to represent, and Navico, Inc.; the action was discontinued subject to the stated deadline and settlement conditions.

What happened

In Carrico v. Navico, Inc., the defendant told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and allowed it to be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing, provided they applied by January 23, 2023. If no application was made by that date, the court stated that the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered the order on December 20, 2022.

The detailed version

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

Case
Carrico v. Navico, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-08187
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Dec. 20, 2022

Background

Joyce Carrico brought the action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Navico, Inc. Navico informed the court by letter that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms.

Court’s action

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. It allowed the action to be restored to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to put their settlement in writing, but only if an application to restore the action was made by January 23, 2023.

The court further stated that if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be brought again. The order did not decide the underlying claims or approve or describe the settlement.

Judge

Mary Kay Vyskocil, United States District Judge, issued the order.

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.