Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 8, 2024

Kunkle v. Pure Prescriptions, Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:23-cv-05514
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Kunkle v. Pure Prescriptions, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action without costs, allowing restoration by March 11, 2024, before dismissal with prejudice.

Who this affects

Frank Kunkle, the individuals he sought to represent, and Pure Prescriptions, Inc.; the action was discontinued subject to the stated deadline and settlement-writing condition.

What happened

Kunkle v. Pure Prescriptions, Inc. was brought by Frank Kunkle on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The court received a letter from Kunkle stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either 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 the case had to be made by March 11, 2024.

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

The detailed version

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

Case
Kunkle v. Pure Prescriptions, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05514
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Feb. 8, 2024

Background

Frank Kunkle sued Pure Prescriptions, Inc., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims. The court received a letter from Kunkle stating 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 if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing. Any application to restore the action had to be made by March 11, 2024.

The court further ordered that if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims or approve the settlement’s terms.

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.