Kalamata Capital Group, LLC v. NewCo Capital Group, LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-00442
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Kalamata Capital Group v. NewCo Capital Group, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the settled action, subject to possible restoration by March 20, 2024.
Kalamata Capital Group, LLC and the defendants identified in the caption—NewCo Capital Group, LLC doing business as Kalabaka Capital Group, and Kalabaka Capital Group, LLC—were affected by the conditional discontinuance of the action and the deadline for seeking restoration.
What happened
Kalamata Capital Group, LLC v. NewCo Capital Group, LLC involved a dispute in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement. They also reported filing a document dismissing all claims and counterclaims, but the court found that filing deficient.
The court ordered the action discontinued without costs to any party. It allowed the case to be restored to the court’s calendar if the parties could not put their voluntary dismissal in writing and requested restoration by March 20, 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 brought back in that court.
The detailed version
- Kalamata Capital Group, LLC v. NewCo Capital Group, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-00442
- Vyskocil
- Feb. 20, 2024
Background
Kalamata Capital Group, LLC was the plaintiff. The caption identifies NewCo Capital Group, LLC doing business as Kalabaka Capital Group, and Kalabaka Capital Group, LLC, as defendants. The court received a joint letter stating that the parties had executed a settlement agreement. The parties also stated that they had filed a stipulation of dismissal covering all claims and counterclaims, but the court found that stipulation deficient.
Court’s action
Because the parties had reached a settlement, the court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar. Restoration was permitted if the parties were unable to memorialize their voluntary dismissal in writing and made an application to restore the action by March 20, 2024.
Effect of the deadline
The court ordered that if no application to restore the action was made by March 20, 2024, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The order did not decide the underlying claims or counterclaims on their merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.