Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 14, 2024

Volfman v. Osteria Piemonte Corporation

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:23-cv-10591
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Volfman v. Osteria Piemonte, Judge Vyskocil conditionally dismissed the settled case, allowing restoration by March 14, 2024.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Joseph Volfman and Defendants Osteria Piemonte Corporation d/b/a San Carlo and Hoskob Associates LLC; the action was conditionally dismissed following the reported settlement in principle.

What happened

In Volfman v. Osteria Piemonte Corporation, Plaintiff Joseph Volfman 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 March 14, 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 then be restored.

The detailed version

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

Case
Volfman v. Osteria Piemonte Corporation · No. 1:23-cv-10591
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Feb. 14, 2024

Background

Plaintiff Joseph Volfman filed a letter informing the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the 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 14, 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 order did not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil signed the order.

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.