Brown v. Un Deux Trois, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-08932
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Brown v. Un Deux Trois, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after the parties reported a settlement in principle, subject to possible restoration by May 1, 2023.
Lamar Brown, the people he sought to represent, and Un Deux Trois, Inc.; the action was discontinued while the parties worked toward a written settlement.
What happened
In Brown v. Un Deux Trois, Inc., Lamar Brown told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. Brown brought the action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and allowed it to be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any request to restore the case had to be made by May 1, 2023.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be brought back.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Un Deux Trois, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-08932
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 15, 2023
Background
Lamar Brown brought this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Un Deux Trois, Inc. The court received Brown’s letter reporting that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
Court’s action
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. The court required any application to restore the action to be made by May 1, 2023.
The order further stated that if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.