Hackett v. Interscope Records, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-01868
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hackett v. Interscope Records, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the settled action without costs, allowing restoration by May 1, 2023, or dismissal with prejudice.
The parties to Hackett v. Interscope Records, Inc. were affected: the action was discontinued without costs, with a possibility of restoration by May 1, 2023, and otherwise the dismissal would become with prejudice.
What happened
In Hackett v. Interscope Records, Inc., the court was told that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement terms.
The court discontinued the case 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 May 1, 2023.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no request to restore the case was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be brought back.
The detailed version
- Hackett v. Interscope Records, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01868
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 31, 2023
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not identify the claims or provide the terms of the proposed settlement.
Order
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 any application to restore the action was 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 court cited Muze, Inc. v. Digital On Demand, Inc. for this procedure.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered an order of dismissal based on the parties’ reported settlement in principle. The opinion did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.