Dicks v. Charlet Brothers, LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-08157
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Dicks v. Charlet Brothers, LLC, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after the parties reported a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by April 10, 2023.
Victoria Dicks and Charlet Brothers, LLC; the action was discontinued, subject to a possible restoration request by April 10, 2023, after which the dismissal would be with prejudice if no request was made.
What happened
In Dicks v. Charlet Brothers, LLC, Victoria Dicks told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the claims or the proposed settlement’s terms.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. It allowed the case to be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and someone applied to restore the case by April 10, 2023.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request was filed by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be reopened on that basis.
The detailed version
- Dicks v. Charlet Brothers, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-08157
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 9, 2023
Background
Victoria Dicks, suing on behalf of herself and others described in the caption as similarly situated, filed a letter informing the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not identify the claims, provide settlement terms, or state whether any class had been certified.
Court’s Action
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The order allowed the action to be restored to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, provided that an application to restore the action was made by April 10, 2023.
The order further stated that if no such application was made by April 10, 2023, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion does not state whether a restoration application was later filed.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered an order of dismissal discontinuing the action under those conditions. The court did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.