Prepared Food Photos, Inc. v. Eastchester Fish Gourmet, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-08516
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Prepared Food Photos v. Eastchester Fish Gourmet, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after the parties reported a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by April 10, 2023.
Prepared Food Photos, Inc. and Eastchester Fish Gourmet, Inc.; the action was discontinued without costs, with a possible application to restore it by April 10, 2023, and otherwise dismissal with prejudice.
What happened
Prepared Food Photos, Inc. v. Eastchester Fish Gourmet, Inc. concerned a letter from the plaintiff telling the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or the settlement’s terms.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. It allowed either party to seek restoration of the action to the court’s calendar by April 10, 2023.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also postponed all other dates and deadlines indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Prepared Food Photos, Inc. v. Eastchester Fish Gourmet, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-08516
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 10, 2023
Background
The court received a letter from Prepared Food Photos, Inc. stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not provide the underlying claims, the settlement terms, or any explanation of the parties’ dispute.
Court’s Order
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The order was initially without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar, but an application to restore had to be made by April 10, 2023. The court further ordered that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. All other dates and deadlines were adjourned indefinitely.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered an order of dismissal based on the parties’ reported settlement in principle. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.