Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 22, 2023

Gibson v. Rivers and Hills Hospitality Group LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:23-cv-00348
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Gibson v. Rivers and Hills Hospitality Group LLC, Judge Vyskocil adjourned the reopening deadline to June 2, 2023, while settlement paperwork awaited signatures.

Who this affects

The parties to Gibson v. Rivers and Hills Hospitality Group LLC, including the plaintiff and defendants, were affected by the extended deadline and the stated consequence of failing to seek restoration of the action.

What happened

Gibson v. Rivers and Hills Hospitality Group LLC involved the parties’ request for more time to file a signed agreement ending the case. The plaintiff’s lawyer said the settlement agreement had been prepared and approved, but client signatures were still pending, and the defendants joined the request.

The court extended the deadline to move to reopen or restore the case to June 2, 2023. The parties did not need to file the signed agreement by that date.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil stated that, under the court’s earlier order, the action will be dismissed with prejudice if the parties do not move to restore it by June 2, 2023. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.

The detailed version

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

Case
Gibson v. Rivers and Hills Hospitality Group LLC · No. 1:23-cv-00348
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
May 22, 2023

Background

The plaintiff’s counsel submitted a joint request for a two-week extension of the deadline to file an executed stipulation of discontinuance, meaning a signed filing formally ending the action. Counsel stated that the parties had prepared and approved a settlement agreement but were still waiting for client signatures. The defendants joined the request.

Ruling

The court adjourned the deadline to move to reopen the case to June 2, 2023. The parties were not required to file an executed stipulation of discontinuance on or before that date.

The order referred to the court’s earlier order at ECF No. 20 and stated that, if the parties did not move to restore the action by June 2, 2023, the action would be dismissed with prejudice. The opinion does not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil signed the order.

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.