Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 28, 2023

Boustead Securities, LLC v. G Medical Innovations Holdings LTD

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-04618
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Boustead Securities v. G Medical, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the settled action without costs, allowing restoration by April 30, 2023.

Who this affects

Boustead Securities, LLC and G Medical Innovations Holdings Ltd. and G Medical Innovations USA Inc.; the action was discontinued without costs, subject to possible restoration by April 30, 2023, and otherwise dismissal with prejudice.

What happened

Boustead Securities, LLC v. G Medical Innovations Holdings Ltd. and G Medical Innovations USA Inc. involved a written settlement agreement reported to the court by Boustead Securities, LLC.

The court discontinued the case without costs to any party. It allowed the parties to ask the court to restore the case if they could not put their settlement into writing, but that request had to be made by April 30, 2023.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the case could not be reopened through that procedure.

The detailed version

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

Case
Boustead Securities, LLC v. G Medical Innovations Holdings LTD · No. 1:22-cv-04618
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Feb. 28, 2023

Background

Boustead Securities, LLC told the court that the parties had executed a written settlement agreement. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

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 April 30, 2023.

The court further 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.

Effect

The case was discontinued based on the reported settlement. The parties retained the stated opportunity to seek restoration by the deadline if they could not memorialize the settlement in writing; otherwise, the dismissal would become 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.