Toro v. G & G Distribution, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-04688
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Toro v. G&G Distribution, Inc., Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action without costs, allowing restoration by September 8 if paperwork failed; otherwise dismissal became with prejudice.
Andrew Toro and G&G Distribution, Inc.; the action was conditionally discontinued based on the parties’ settlement in principle.
What happened
In Toro v. G&G Distribution, Inc., Andrew Toro sued G&G Distribution, Inc. on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The defendant told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and allowed the case to be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and requested restoration by September 8, 2023.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request was made by September 8, 2023, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Toro v. G & G Distribution, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04688
- Vyskocil
- Aug. 8, 2023
Background
Andrew Toro brought this action against G&G Distribution, Inc. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The opinion does not state the underlying legal claims or describe the alleged facts.
Settlement and Court Order
The court received a letter from G&G Distribution, Inc. stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The court therefore ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party.
The order allowed either side to seek restoration of the action to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, but only if the restoration application was made by September 8, 2023. The order stated that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered a conditional dismissal: the action was discontinued without costs and could be restored by the stated deadline if the settlement was not put in writing; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.