Espinal v. Blinds Chalet LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-03509
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Espinal v. Blinds Chalet LLC, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after settlement in principle, allowing restoration by September 18, 2023.
Frangie Espinal and Blinds Chalet LLC, as well as the similarly situated people represented in the action, were affected by the discontinuance and the deadline for seeking restoration.
What happened
Espinal v. Blinds Chalet LLC involved Frangie Espinal’s action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated people against Blinds Chalet LLC. The court received a letter stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. It allowed the case to be restored to the court’s calendar if the parties could not put their settlement in writing, but any request to restore the case had to be made by September 18, 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
- Espinal v. Blinds Chalet LLC · No. 1:23-cv-03509
- Vyskocil
- Aug. 18, 2023
Background
Frangie Espinal brought the action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated people against Blinds Chalet LLC. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims. Espinal informed the court by letter that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
Court’s Action
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. Restoration was permitted if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, provided that the application to restore the action was made by September 18, 2023.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no application to restore the action was made by September 18, 2023, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice. The opinion does not state whether the settlement was later memorialized or whether any restoration application was filed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.