Delacruz v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-10294
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Delacruz v. CVS Pharmacy, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by April 10, 2023.
Emanuel Delacruz, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., and the putative class members identified in the caption. The case was discontinued, with restoration available by April 10, 2023; otherwise, the order stated that the dismissal would be with prejudice.
What happened
In Delacruz v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Emanuel Delacruz brought the case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against CVS Pharmacy, Inc. The opinion does not describe the claims or the proposed settlement’s terms.
The court received a letter from Delacruz stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not say that the settlement was final or approved.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the case discontinued without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made by April 10, 2023. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending letter motion.
The detailed version
- Delacruz v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10294
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 6, 2023
Background
The case was brought by Emanuel Delacruz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against CVS Pharmacy, Inc. The opinion provides no details about the underlying claims.
The court received a letter from Delacruz stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms or state that the court approved a final settlement.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the case be discontinued without costs to any party. The order allowed the case to be restored to the court’s calendar if an application to restore it was made by April 10, 2023. It stated that, if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice. The court adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely and requested that the Clerk of Court terminate the letter motion pending at docket entry 7.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.