Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 20, 2023

Wallace v. International House of Pancakes, LLC

Judge
Sarah Netburn
Docket
1:21-cv-06993
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

Wallace v. International House of Pancakes, Judge Vyskocil, discontinued the settled action, subject to restoration by April 20, 2023.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and the defendants in the action, including International House of Pancakes LLC, Trihop Management LLC, Trihop 177th Street LLC, Trihop 14th Street LLC, Trihop 69th Street LLC, John Doe LLC, Ben Ashkenazy, Edward Scannapieco, and Kwesi Thomas.

What happened

In Wallace v. International House of Pancakes, LLC, the plaintiff told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any request to restore the case had to be made by April 20, 2023.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Wallace v. International House of Pancakes, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-06993
Judge
Sarah Netburn
Date
Mar. 20, 2023

Background

The plaintiff filed a letter informing the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The discontinuance was without prejudice to restoring the action 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 20, 2023. The court further ordered that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Effect

The case was ended subject to the stated restoration condition. The order did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.

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.