Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 12, 2024

Laureano v. Hutchinson Whitestone Motel Corp.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:23-cv-09301
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Laureano v. Hutchinson Whitestone Motel, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the settled action, allowing restoration by April 12, 2024.

Who this affects

John Laureano and Hutchinson Whitestone Motel Corp.; the action was discontinued without costs, subject to restoration by April 12, 2024, and otherwise dismissal with prejudice.

What happened

In Laureano v. Hutchinson Whitestone Motel Corp., the plaintiff told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. The action could be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and a request was made by April 12, 2024.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that, if no request to restore the action 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
Laureano v. Hutchinson Whitestone Motel Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-09301
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Mar. 12, 2024

Background

John Laureano sued Hutchinson Whitestone Motel Corp., a New York corporation doing business as Hutchinson Whitestone Motel. The opinion states that the court received a letter from Laureano informing it that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

Ruling

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 put their settlement in writing. Any request to restore the action had to be made by April 12, 2024. The order states that if no such request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Effect

The opinion resolves the case based on the reported settlement process rather than deciding the underlying claims. It does not describe those claims or 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.