Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 5, 2023

Suez Treatment Solutions, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Company

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:20-cv-06082
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureInsurance
In one sentence

In Suez Treatment Solutions v. ACE American, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the settled case, allowing restoration by February 6, 2023, before dismissal with prejudice.

Who this affects

Suez Treatment Solutions, Inc., ACE American Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The action could be restored to the court’s calendar if an application was made by February 6, 2023; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

What happened

Suez Treatment Solutions, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Company involved claims against ACE American Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The court was informed that the parties had settled all issues.

The court discontinued the case without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar by February 6, 2023. If no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered the order on January 5, 2023. The opinion does not describe the settled claims or the settlement’s terms.

The detailed version

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

Case
Suez Treatment Solutions, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Company · No. 1:20-cv-06082
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Jan. 5, 2023

Background

Suez Treatment Solutions, Inc. sued ACE American Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The opinion states that the court was informed by the magistrate judge that the parties had reached a settlement on all issues in the case. It does not provide the claims’ underlying facts or the settlement terms.

Order

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. A request to restore the action had to be made by February 6, 2023. The order further states that, if no such request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be restored.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered the order of dismissal on January 5, 2023. The court did not decide the underlying dispute because the parties had settled it. The opinion does not state whether any party later sought restoration.

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.