Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 10, 2023

Brown v. Danice Stores, Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:23-cv-00341
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

Judge Vyskocil discontinued Brown v. Danice Store after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by November 10, 2023, or making dismissal with prejudice.

Who this affects

Altaune Brown, Danice Store, Inc., and 305 West Holding Corp.; the action was discontinued based on the parties’ settlement in principle, subject to the order’s restoration deadline.

What happened

In Brown v. Danice Store, Inc. and 305 West Holding Corp., the plaintiff told the court 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 allowed it to be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing, provided an application was made by November 10, 2023. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued the order on October 10, 2023.

The detailed version

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

Case
Brown v. Danice Stores, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00341
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Oct. 10, 2023

Background

The court received a letter from Plaintiff Altaune Brown stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or provide the settlement’s terms.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The dismissal was without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, so long as an application to restore the action was made by November 10, 2023. The order further states that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Effect

The order ended the case subject to the stated deadline and settlement condition. It did not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.

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.