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

Girotto v. Voz Apparel Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:23-cv-04008
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Girotto v. Voz Apparel, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the settled action, allowing restoration by November 9, 2023, before dismissal with prejudice.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Luigi Girotto and Defendants Voz Apparel Inc. and 178 Prince Street Owners Corp.

What happened

In Girotto v. Voz Apparel Inc., Plaintiff Luigi Girotto told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the action 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 November 9, 2023.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request was made by that deadline, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Girotto v. Voz Apparel Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04008
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Oct. 10, 2023

Background Plaintiff Luigi Girotto filed the action against Voz Apparel Inc., doing business as Voz Sanctuary, and 178 Prince Street Owners Corp. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims. Girotto notified the court 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. The order allowed the case to be restored to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, but the request to restore the case had to be made by November 9, 2023. Any request for an extension had to be filed by letter at least 48 hours before the deadline.

Effect of the order Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request was made by November 9, 2023, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not then be restored. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

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.