Girotto v. Artemide Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-04736
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Girotto v. Artemide, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by March 8, 2024.
Luigi Girotto and the defendants, including Artemide Inc.; the action was discontinued after a settlement in principle, with a deadline to seek restoration if the settlement was not put in writing.
What happened
In Girotto v. Artemide Inc., the mediator informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
The court discontinued the action 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 and requested restoration by March 8, 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 revived. The court did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Girotto v. Artemide Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04736
- Vyskocil
- Feb. 8, 2024
Background
The mediator informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not provide the underlying claims or the proposed settlement’s terms.
Ruling
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The discontinuance was without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, provided that an application to restore the action was made by March 8, 2024.
The court further ordered that if no application to restore the action was made by March 8, 2024, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court did not reach the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.