Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v…
Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Precision Interior Construction Corp.
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-10205
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Trustees v. Precision Interior Construction, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after the parties reported a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by February 24, 2023.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case were affected by the conditional dismissal, the postponement of deadlines, and the court’s warning that future violations could lead to sanctions.
What happened
In Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Precision Interior Construction Corp., the parties reported that they had reached a settlement in principle and asked to postpone a scheduled conference.
The court discontinued the case without costs to either side and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if a restoration request was made by February 24, 2023. If no request was made by that date, the dismissal would become with prejudice. The court also postponed all other dates and deadlines, including the January 26 conference.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil declined to impose sanctions at that time, but reserved the question of sanctions if the matter continued. The court noted that the parties had repeatedly failed to comply with court orders and warned that further violations could lead to monetary sanctions, limits on claims or defenses, or dismissal.
The detailed version
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v… · No. 1:21-cv-10205
- Vyskocil
- Jan. 25, 2023
Background The parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in principle. They asked the court to adjourn the conference scheduled for January 26, 2023. The court also noted that the parties had not complied with earlier orders requiring a joint status letter and pre-motion submissions. In a January 20 order, the court had directed the parties to explain why they should not be sanctioned and why they had not forfeited the opportunity to file contemplated summary-judgment motions. The parties did not file the required explanations or address those issues in their settlement letter.
Ruling Because of the reported settlement in principle, the court ordered that the case be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if an application to restore was made by February 24, 2023. The court stated that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. All other dates and deadlines, including the January 26 conference, were adjourned without a new date.
Sanctions The court declined to impose sanctions at that time because it was closing the case in light of the settlement. It reserved the decision whether sanctions would be warranted if there were further litigation in the matter. The court warned that additional failures to comply with court orders or its Individual Rules could result in monetary sanctions, preclusion of claims and defenses, or dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.