De La Rosa v. Tresser Management Corp.
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-03448
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In De La Rosa v. Tresser Management, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after parties reported a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by February 9, 2024, before dismissal with prejudice.
Jessica De La Rosa and defendants Tresser Management Corp. and Mexico Lindo Restaurant, Inc.; the action was discontinued based on the parties’ reported settlement in principle.
What happened
In De La Rosa v. Tresser Management Corp., Jessica De La Rosa 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. The case could be restored to the court’s calendar if the parties could not put their settlement in writing, but an application to restore had to be made by February 9, 2024.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be reopened.
The detailed version
- De La Rosa v. Tresser Management Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-03448
- Vyskocil
- Jan. 10, 2024
Background
The court received a letter from Plaintiff Jessica De La Rosa stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or the terms of the proposed settlement.
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 if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing. Any application to restore the action had to be made by February 9, 2024.
The order further states that if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion cites Muze, Inc. v. Digital On Demand, Inc. in support of this procedure.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the action discontinued on the stated terms. The order did not resolve the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.