Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 30, 2023

Yan Luis v. Ancestral Supplements, LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-08582
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Yan Luis v. Ancestral Supplements, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by May 1, 2023.

Who this affects

Kevin Yan Luis, the people he sought to represent, and Ancestral Supplements, LLC were affected by the court’s discontinuance of the action and its conditions for restoring the case.

What happened

Kevin Yan Luis brought this action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Ancestral Supplements, LLC. The opinion says the parties reported reaching a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the action without costs to any party. The case could be restored to the court’s calendar if the parties could not put their settlement in writing, but any request to restore it 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. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Yan Luis v. Ancestral Supplements, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-08582
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Mar. 30, 2023

Background

Kevin Yan Luis sued Ancestral Supplements, LLC on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The court received a letter from Luis stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

Court’s Order

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.

If no application to restore the action was made by that date, the court stated that the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion does not address the merits of the underlying claims or describe the settlement’s terms.

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.